Tennis Has a Steroid Problem

Open Thread: End of (Aussie) Days (Updated Jan. 27, #2)

2012-01-27T06:38:00.000-08:00

How about that Murray-Djokovic semi-final match? Coincidentally, site traffic has been crazy for the last few hours. And interestingly, a lot of the Google keyword searches show people are wondering at about the drug testing/doping control protocol at this year's Australian Open. Well, what does the ITF have to say about that?

I have nothing to add at this point. The onus is on the ITF to prove they have an effective doping control programme, but they are not interested in doing so. I wonder why? Of course, I also do not understand how their testing plan is consistent with the WADA's International Standard for Testing.

As for the media, they have demonstrated their priorities quite clearly.

Enjoy the rest of the circus.

Update #1

1. There's been some mentions of Novak Djokovic taking a pill during the semi-final. Check this out. It recalls something from 2011, no?

2. Andy Murray gave a blood and urine sample after the match. Even though this would be the only time he was tested the entire tournament, he still complained.

Update #2

A clip of Djokovic taking something under the towel, during the semi-finals.

Doping Control: 2009 US Open (Qualifying and Main Draws)

2012-01-26T07:09:00.000-08:00

For some reason, the site is experiencing a huge surge in traffic currently. Did something happen? Anyways, here is the US Open testing from the 2009 statistics. Needless to say, the tradition continues...

Data Sources

Players tested and test dates: ITF's 2009 Anti-Doping Programme Statistics

Win/loss and Round Info #1: Wikipedia

Win/loss and Round Info #2: Tennis Explorer

Doping Control: 2009 Wimbledon (Qualifying and Main Draws)

2012-01-24T19:49:00.000-08:00

At this point, no explanation is required. Here is the testing conducted at Wimbledon 2009 for the qualifying, men's singles & doubles, and women's singles & doubles draws. No surprises. All the tests were conducted on match losers (or withdrawals) with the exception of champions. The only complication is that in a few instances a player had multiple matches on the same day, so I couldn't pin down exactly the match for which the test was conducted. However, the rules still held, so it wasn't an issue. Let me know if you find any errors.

As always, my data sources are provided below for those who want to verify my results and for those who don't want to believe their eyes.

Data Sources
Players tested and test dates: ITF's 2009 Anti-Doping Programme Statistics
Win/loss and Round Info #1: Wikipedia
Win/loss and Round Info #2: Tennis Explorer

Don't Look Now

2012-01-23T14:05:00.000-08:00

First off, I've added a "Doping Control Statistics" page for all the recent data posted.

Now for some fun. We've looked at the testing for a Grand Slam event, but what about the rest? Do the smaller tournaments use the same testing distribution? To start, I decided to take a look at a 250-series event: 2009 Buenos Aires. The tournament ran from February 16 through February 22, 2009. Winners were actually tested! However, I quickly realized that there was something amiss.

Notice anything? The last doping control was conducted on February 17, but the tournament ended on February 22. That means that almost all tests were taken for 1st round play (some of the tests were for qualifying matches). And, more importantly, the date of the last test means there were no post-match doping controls for the quarterfinal, semi-final, and final matches.

Isolated incident? No. What about the 2009 Indian Wells draw? Indian Wells (or BNP Paribas Open) It's a Masters 1000 Series event for the men and a Premier Mandatory on the women's tour. It ran from March 9 through March 22, 2009. The last doping control was on March 16.

Here's what the entire 2009 tournament testing schedule looked like (excluding Grand Slam events, Fed and Davis Cup, and Wheelchair events):

This cannot be considered stringent doping control. Not even remotely. The median result is that testing stops 4 days before the end of a tournament. This means that 50 percent of the tournaments (where doping controls occurred) had no post-match doping control conducted for the quarters, semis, and final rounds. The testing seems to be particularly lax for Challenger Tournaments. Why would you weight the testing so heavily on the early days of tournaments when players are fresh? Isn't such a testing distribution an invitation for rampant in-competition doping?

The weighting should placed on the later rounds when player fatigue would be a factor. Instead, it seems that the plan is to get the doping controls done quickly (which, at least, means some winners get tested). Do you think players wouldn't be aware of what was going on? "Hey, where did the doping control officers go? No one got tested today." And "I got tested after my first round match. I know that means that I won't get tested again even, if I win the tournament."

With such a testing protocol would it be of any surprise to see players recover miraculously from brutal matches in the late rounds of tournaments?

Also, keep in mind that there were tournaments where there were no doping controls at all. For example, there were no tests done for the men's or woman's draws at the 2009 Rogers Cup (a Masters/Premier event) held in Montreal (men) and Toronto (women).

Is there anything left to say about doping control in tennis?

As always, I encourage you to check the stats yourself to verify my results. Let me know if you find any errors.

Data Sources:

ITF 2009 Testing Statistics
ATP 2009 Main Tour Schedule
ATP 2009 Challenger Schedule
WTA 2009 Schedule

Open Thread Weekend (Updated Jan. 21)

2012-01-20T12:57:00.000-08:00

I've done a lot of posts over the past week or so, releasing heavy dose of information. I think my work, using nothing more than ITF statistics, shows conclusively that the tennis anti-doping program is inadequate on many levels. Let me know your comments, thoughts, etc. Now it's time to enjoy the weekend. And maybe a bit of the tennis, too.

Also, here's some other news:

London 2012 Olympics: drug cheats are set to face most advanced anti-doping procedures in Games history

Alarming trend of doping among school athletes

British sprinter Bernice Wilson handed 4-year ban after failing doping test

Brazilian swimmer Fabiola Molina gets increased 6-month doping ban from sports court

Testers no match for 'clever doper'

Update

Australian Open Week 1

Search Keywords: 2012 Jan 14 21:00 – 2012 Jan 21 20:00

Doping Control: WADA Lab Findings For Tennis

2012-01-20T06:37:00.000-08:00

Time for a short break from previous Australian Open doping controls.

Also, if you haven't already noticed, I've added a "First Time Reader" page. The tab is near the top of the page.

In the past, I've looked at the ITF's anti-doping reports to the WADA (which date back to 2008). I decided to a take a broader look at doping controls in tennis by reviewing the results reported by WADA Accredited Laboratories (which go back to 2003). These statistics include all analyses conducted by the WADA accredited laboratories for in- and out-of-competition tennis player testing conducted on the behalf of the ITF, but also tests conducted by National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADO), like the USADA, UKAD, and ASADA. It also means the this testing captures not just ITF players (i.e., professionals), but amateur athletes (e.g., college/university athletes).

Also, starting in 2008, the lab findings report on "atypical" findings, which would include, for example, elevated ratios of testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E). However, the ITF's WADA filings do not include "atypical" findings. One can safely assume that a portion (if not most) of the atypical findings in the WADA lab reports are from ITF or NADO tests of professional tennis players.

Here are the numbers:

Keeping in mind that these numbers will include some non-ITF players: What was going on from 2003-2007 that caused so many adverse tests? Alternatively, what happened in 2008-onwards that resulted in a decrease in adverse test results? And what was behind the large number of atypical findings in 2009? Further, given the volume of atypical findings, why have we seen no violations for synthetic testosterone use?

Data Sources:

WADA Testing Statistics

International Standard for Testing

2012-01-19T12:42:00.000-08:00

"World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for Testing is a mandatory International Standard (Level 2) developed as part of the World Anti-Doping Program."

Some excerpts from the WADA's International Standard for Testing:

Random Selection: Selection of Athletes for Testing which is not Target Testing. Random Selection may be: completely random (where no pre-determined criteria are considered, and Athletes are chosen arbitrarily from a list or pool of Athlete names); or weighted (where Athletes are ranked using pre-determined criteria in order to increase or decrease the chances of selection)...

Target Testing: Selection of Athletes for Testing where specific Athletes or groups of Athletes are selected on a non-random basis for Testing at a specified time...

4.3.9 The ADO [Anti-Doping Organization] shall ensure that the timing of Testing is planned to ensure optimum deterrence and detection of doping practices...

4.4.2 ADOs shall ensure that a significant amount of Testing undertaken pursuant to the Test Distribution Plan is Target Testing, based on the intelligent assessment of the risks of doping and the most effective use of resources to ensure optimum detection and deterrence. The factors that will be relevant to determining who should be made the subject of Target Testing will vary as between different sports, but could include (without limitation) some or all of the following factors:

a) Abnormal biological parameters (blood parameters, steroid profiles, etc);
b) Injury;
c) Withdrawal or absence from expected Competition;
d) Going into or coming out of retirement;
e) Behaviour indicating doping;
f) Sudden major improvements in performance;
g) Repeated failure to provide Whereabouts Filings;
h) Whereabouts Filings that may indicate a potential increase in the risk of doping, including moving to a remote location;
i) Athlete sport performance history;
j) Athlete age, e.g. approaching retirement, move from junior to senior level;
k) Athlete test history;
l) Athlete reinstatement after a period of Ineligibility;
m) Financial incentives for improved performance, such as prize money or sponsorship opportunities;
n) Athlete association with a third party such as coach or doctor with a history of involvement in doping; and o) Reliable information from a third party.

4.4.3 Testing which is not Target Testing shall be determined by Random Selection, which shall be conducted using a documented system for such selection. Random Selection which is weighted shall be conducted according to clear criteria and may take into account the factors listed in Clause 4.4.2 (as applicable) in order to ensure that a greater percentage of ‘at risk’ Athletes is selected.

Riddle me this: What type of testing was being used at the 2006 and 2009 Australian Open (and any other tournaments with similar test distributions)? Was the timing of testing planned to ensure optimum deterrence and detection of doping practices?

Doping Control: 2006 Australian Open (The Women)

2012-01-19T05:26:00.000-08:00

No surprises here. Same story as the men's draws.

As always, let me know if you find an error.

Data Sources

Players tested and test dates: ITF's 2006 Anti-Doping Programme Statistics
Win/Loss Info and Dates: Tennis Explorer

Doping Control: 2006 Australian Open (The Men)

2012-01-18T16:04:00.000-08:00

To counter any critics out there who are thinking of arguing that the test distribution at the 2009 Australian Open (see here) was a one-off, I decided to take a look at the 2006 testing results. Guess what the results are for the men?

Can there be any doubt that this was (and still is?) a longstanding practice that players would know about?

Where was the media back then? Where are they now?

Women's draws to follow.

As always, let me know if you find an error.

Data Sources

Players tested and test dates: ITF's 2006 Anti-Doping Programme Statistics
Win/Loss Info and Dates: Tennis Explorer

Why Bother With Press Conferences?

2012-01-18T06:26:00.000-08:00

Wednesday, 18 January, 2012
Serena Williams press conference after her first round win.

            Q. That was a nasty sprain in Brisbane, pretty extreme. Are you surprised you're able to move as well as you did tonight? How hard was it to get yourself to this stage?

            SERENA WILLIAMS: It wasn't easy to get myself to this stage. You know, I just had to think positive and be mentally there. And I'm just taking it day to day. You know, I'm doing everything possible that I can, things I've never done, just to get it better.
            You know, last night was the first night I didn't have any pain in it. I was, Okay, that's pretty good. But it is a very, very, very bad sprain. So I'm just playing it by ear.

Q. You don't talk about your injuries too much. What did you do that was unusual?

SERENA WILLIAMS: Yeah, something was pretty bad. I tore a couple ligaments, so... But it's all right. I'm in here playing.

Q. In terms of therapy?

SERENA WILLIAMS: Oh, therapy‑wise? I'm not going to discuss that. It's working, though, I think. We'll see.

For Those Interested

Every weekday during this year's Australian Open, Peter Bodo will take your questions about the tournament at 2 pm EST.

Doping Test Distribution: 2009 Australian Open

2012-01-17T15:21:00.000-08:00

There are two tables presented below regarding doping tests conducted at the 2009 Australian Open. The first breaks down the tests according to draw (e.g., singles, doubles, etc.). The second table breaks things down according to winners tested and losers tested for the main singles and doubles draws.

The table reveals that the aggregate testing statistics presented in the ITF's 2009 summary report are somewhat misleading. The summary reports states that 150 tests were carried out (74 men; 76 women). However, the ITF summary doesn't indicate that these tests were spread across not just the main singles, doubles, and mixed doubles draws, but also include the qualfying rounds as well as the juniors tournaments. Second, if you're paying attention, you'll notice that my totals differ (74 men; 75 women) from the ITF's totals. The discrepancy is due to the ITF making errors in their detailed statistics. They included a female wheechair test in the men's data, and a junior boys test in the women's data. So, I shifted the junior test into the mens numbers and dropped the wheelchair test.

The second table, of course, shows the ITF's in-competition test distribution plan for the 2009 Australian Open to be weak in the extreme. Match winners were only tested in the finals. In all other rounds only the losing player(s) was tested. This finding came from my earlier analysis of the men's and women's draws.

Does this look like a stringent testing regime? Who thinks tennis historians should place an asterik next to the 2009 Australian Open?

More Of The Same? Drug Tests At The 2012 Aussie Open

2012-01-17T08:56:00.000-08:00

From the Official website of the Australian Open: "As if losing in the opening round on a blazing hot day wasn’t bad enough, world No.65 Rebecca Marino was then requested to provide a routine anti-doping sample..."

Again, if the test distribution plan is on taking samples from losing players directly after matches (see 2009), there should be little surprise that there are so few positive tests for steroids, synthetic testosterone, EPO, stimulants, etc. You name it. They aren't going to find any.

At a minimum, the testing of match winners at random times on off-days is required.

More Testing Data From The 2009 Australian Open

2012-01-16T15:38:00.000-08:00

In the past, this blog has been criticized by some for "cherry picking" data or relying on pictures. As a result, I've used publicly available ITF and WADA data in most of the recent posts. Last week, I took time to go through the in-competition testing for the Men's Singles and Doubles draws at the 2009 Aussie Open. It was tedious work, but the results speak for themselves. The data showed that players were only tested after a loss and that no player was tested in-competition more than once.

The exceptions to these findings on the men's side were: (1) champions at the 2009 event were tested; and (2) while players weren't tested more than once within a individual draw, they could potentially be tested more than once if they entered multiple draws (e.g., played a combo of singles, doubles, and/or mixed).

Here's a look at the women's draws for 2009 Aussie Open. It's the same story:

If anyone spots an error, let me know.

I'm eager to hear an argument establishing that tennis has stringent testing.

Data Sources

How the list was compiled:

Players tested and test dates: ITF's 2009 Anti-Doping Programme Statistics
Win/loss and Round Info: ITF Archives
Supplemental Round Info and Dates #1: Archived Day Schedules
Supplemental Round Info and Dates #2: Tennis Explorer

Beyond The Point Of Nonsense

2012-01-16T05:29:00.000-08:00

What did Nadal have to say following his "positively clinical 6-4, 6-1, 6-1 victory over Alex Kuznetsov in late afternoon sunshine at Melbourne Park..."?

Australian Open: Monday, 16 January, 2012

Q. Was it perhaps because of the weather that you felt you needed a bit more strapping on your leg, extra protection?

RAFAEL NADAL: No, that's not the reason, no? I gonna do because I think, you know, doing this band there, I don't want to create mystery or nothing. I gonna say what happened.

I had a fantastic week of practice with nothing of pain, no one bad feeling on the knee and no one place on my body. So I was really, really happy with everything.

But yesterday afternoon happened the more strange thing ever happen to me. I was sitting on a chair in the hotel. I felt like a crack on the knee, but is nothing really strange. Happens lot of time with articulation, movement, articulation. Nothing strange.

I stand up. I felt the knee a little bit strange. I moved the leg like this two times to try to find the feeling. After the second time, the knee stays with an unbelievable pain completely straight. I really couldn't move the knee like this (indicating just a little bit). I have no movement on the knee.

I have a hard afternoon. I did all the tests. Came here for ultrasound. Went to hospital for MRI. I just can say thank you very much to the tournament for all the facilities give to me on a Sunday. Not easy to find places, and they make fantastic work for me. So I just can say thanks to them.

And, seriously, yesterday during the evening I wasn't hundred percent sure I would have chance to play, because with the movement of that knee I felt that I will not be able to play.

I did a lot of treatment. The MRI was positive. Nothing wrong shows the MRI. So that's always a lot of calm. But still the knee, you know, with the pain.

Finally what happened is with the movement, articulation, probably pinch maybe the tendon little bit or something that put the tendon completely straight.

That's why yesterday we did a lot of work during the evening. At the end of the night with a lot of pain, but I finally really had the full movement of the knee. I wake up today morning with a little bit better feeling. I did all the treatment. I was all the day doing the treatment.

I started the match with a little bit of scare at the beginning, and nervous because I was really disappointed yesterday. But, you know, after the first 10 games that was scare, I started to play with normal conditions.

The best thing is I felt the knee very well. So is something that I really don't understand why happened everything, but I am really happy that today I was ready to play and I played a fantastic match.

The "Panic Room" Effect? (Updated: Jan 16)

2012-01-15T07:58:00.000-08:00

Here are some excerpts from a recent WTA memo on the 2012 anti-doping program. Some portions appear to influenced by the Serena's "Panic Room" incident. Other portions appear to be related to the Yanina Wickmayer-Xavier Malisse whereabouts events. And others are just plain interesting.

Is there a whereabouts failure problem? Why is the WTA providing players with reminders like this?

Maybe other Anti-Doping Organizations should review ITF findings of non-violations to confirm no violation was committed?

How about members of the public?

Why won't they take blood before a player's last match? Why are they telling the players?

Interesting stuff. On the last point regarding blood testing, why is this the testing policy? And why tell the players? Wouldn't you want to keep it secret in order to deter doping? Also, recall that the ITF told me that "We do not comment on testing protocol at the Grand Slam tournaments or any other tennis events where testing takes place."

Well, there it is.

Updated: Jan. 16

In response to demisphere`s question: According to the USADA, "During the blood collection process, less than one tablespoon of blood will be drawn and the amount of blood should not affect your performance." So, the amount of blood required is not an issue, although I`m sure that there are athletes who would argue with that.

Rugby Scandal

2012-01-14T16:35:00.000-08:00

"Banned rugby star Martin Gleeson claims his game's governing body were involved in the doping scandal that wrecked his life"

Grab Bag

2012-01-13T17:30:00.000-08:00

Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

Last week, I wrote a piece comparing the ITF's public disclosure rules respecting anti-doping violations with the disclosure permitted by the WADA Code. The post made two main points (1) the WADA Code permits far more public disclosure than the ITF Rules permit; and (2) other sports, like cycling and track, disclose anti-doping information to the full extent permitted by the WADA Code (e.g., public announcements of positive tests and provisional suspensions).

I asked the ITF why their disclosure differed from that allowed WADA Code. And they responded. Here is the answer:

SNR: Can you please explain why the ITF does not make use of the public
disclosure permitted by the WADA Code regarding violations and decisions?

ITF Response: "The Tennis Anti-Doping Programme is managed by the ITF for the ATP, WTA, Grand Slams and ITF. The partnership is able, under the WADA Code, to determine how it will handle public announcements in its sport and the TADP has decided that it will not make public any information regarding an on-going investigation until and unless an Independent Tribunal determines that a rule violation has occurred. The only exception is to confirm that an athlete is under investigation if that athlete voluntarily releases this information to the media as in the case of Richard Gasquet. This decision by the TADP was made in order to protect the privacy of our athletes until they are proven to have committed a rule violation, similar to the "innocent until proven guilty" principle of law."

A few quick observations:

1. Keeping everything confidential until and unless someone is found guilty of a violation is nothing like the "innocent until proven guilty" principle of law. When someone is charged with a crime the information is made public. Most trials are public. Verdicts (whether guilty or innocent) are made public. However, the ITF only publicly discloses guilty verdicts. Guilty or not, the fact remains that a player tested positive. Yet the public never learns of players that tested positive, but were not found guilty. How can the public (and players who don't cheat) have confidence in a system that doesn't diclose the reasons for exonerating players that test positive?

2. The ITF states that their rules are designed "to protect the privacy of our athletes." As I pointed out last week, other sports (as a rule) disclose information that the ITF (as a rule) refuses to make public. Does this mean that the ITF believes that cycling's recent announcement that it has provisionally suspended Seven South American cyclists after failing doping tests shows a lack of respect for privacy and violates the "innocent until proven guilty" principle? Further, does this mean that the ITF is of the view that the WADA Code, which allows such disclosure, permits sports governing bodies to abuse the privacy of their athletes?

3. The response states that "The only exception is to confirm that an athlete is under investigation if that athlete voluntarily releases this information to the media." So, tennis players can disclose that they have tested positive and have been provisionally suspended (and/or being investigated) can they? Clearly, with the exception of Gasquet, they are not doing so (e.g., Robert Kendrick never said anything when he withdrew from Wimbledon in 2011). Given how few players are found to have committed violations, is it any wonder that they don't speak when under investigation? Have any lied to cover-up a provisional suspension?

Lazarus Man

Rafael Nadal (thanks, richard): "But for the last three weeks I am practising in perfect conditions, so that's fantastic news and then practising here very hard, three hours every day, with no problems on the shoulder and that's what I need and I'm very happy for that."

Laughter Is The Best...Exercise?

"...[Serena] Williams was asked about the regimen behind her taut abdominals, which she says have little to do with exercise and more to do with enjoying herself.

"I laugh a lot, so I think that has a lot to do with developing those muscles. I don't really do sit-ups too much," she said." (thanks, richard)

Operating...

"Operación Puerto reportedly involved approximately 200 sportspeople, but the only ones who were identified were cyclists, who comprised a quarter of this total. There were persistent rumours that Spanish footballers, athletes, tennis players and others were involved, but the national federations of those sports did not dig deeper and the issue faded away for them."

This Is Testing? The 2009 Australian Open

2012-01-12T15:10:00.000-08:00

We've established that out-of-competition testing in tennis isn't strong. What about in-competition? Is it possible to engage in micro-doping at a major tournament on the professional tennis circuit? Let's take a look at the testing conducted at the 2009 Australian Open Men's Singles Main Draw(testing for Men's Doubles and data sources given at end of post):

Notice a pattern? Does this look like random testing?

As the table makes obvious, players were only tested IF they LOST(with the exception of champions). You'd have to play in more than one draw (e.g., singles and doubles) just to have a chance of getting tested twice. Is it any wonder that so few players are caught doping in tennis? This testing protocol means that a player could potentially micro-dose (e.g., fast-acting synthetic testosterone) all the way to a championship by boosting after each win and on off-days since they would know in advance that they wouldn't be tested. By dosing in such a manner, any traces would clear before the next round and the player would test clean if they lost. And if a player was really cocky, and convinced that they were going to beat their opponent, they could boost the same day as the match (or even during a match), knowing that by winning, they wouldn't be tested (except for the finals).

Why would anyone have such an ineffective (and clearly non-random) testing protocol? I asked the ITF to confirm that this was the testing protocol for Grand Slam events in 2009 and whether this testing practice continues. Their response: "We do not comment on testing protocol at the Grand Slam tournaments or any other tennis events where testing takes place."

I should note that the exception for 2009 was the French Open, where supplemental "random and targeted" testing was carried out by the French anti-doping authority (AFLD): Nadal, Federer, Tsonga, and others were tested following early round wins.

Given the testing data, how can it be claimed that the anti-doping programme conducted by the ITF is adequate? How many years has this been going on? Was the same testing plan carried out in 2010 and 2011? Unfortunately, we don't know becuase the ITF didn't published detailed information for 2010. Is this the testing plan for 2012?

How should the testing be conducted? Well, here's what happened at the 2010 Tour de France: "8 Post-Finish tests per day with the Stage winner and the holder of the Yellow Jersey automatic selections and 6 further tests either drawn randomly or targeted using intelligence from the UCI. In addition on selected days unannounced testing was conducted in the evening and the morning for the purposes of target testing."

Why can't tennis test the top 2 or 4 seeds after every round with further tests either drawn randomly and/or targeted? Tennis was clearly not using these methods in 2009. Is it using them now? They won't say. Without random and/or targeted testing of all players (winners and losers), the testing isn't going to catch much. And it hasn't.

It is clear that not only is the out-of-competition testing in tennis deficient, but even in-competition testing is weak. This presents a significant credibility problem.

The WADA should send an Independent Observer Team over to the Australian Open ASAP.

Data Sources

How the list was compiled:

Players tested and test dates: ITF's 2009 Anti-Doping Programme Statistics
Win/loss and Round Info: ITF Archives
Supplemental Round Info and Dates: Archived Day Schedules

If you find an error, let me know.

Doping Violations: 2008-present; How Many Agassi Cases?

2012-01-11T13:42:00.000-08:00

The Data

Anti-Doping Violations by ITF Players 2008-2011; Adverse Analytical Findings for 2011 Not Available

ITF Anti-Doping Totals: 2008-2010 (Totals exclude 2011 violations as Adverse Findings data not yet available)

What Does It Mean?

I've talked about this before, but I thought presenting the info in this way made things more clear. Let's break it down: Not very many doping violations have occured and the players found guilty of committing violations are, almost without exception, low ranked players. Tennis journalists love to talk about this because it promotes the view that there is no PED problem in tennis and those that do use are marginal.

However, there is more. First, all the testing violations are from in-competition tests (which speaks volumes about the ITF's weak out-of-competition testing regime). Further, as I noted previously, unlike other sports like cycling, the ITF's anti-doping rules state that the ITF will only make public decisions that find a doping violation occurred. If a player tests positive and is found "not guilty" no information is made public.

The data show that the ITF is, in fact, not disclosing positive tests. For 2008-2010, adverse analytical findings (30) exceed test-based violations (10). Why? For what reasons did these adverse findings not result in an anti-doping violation (e.g., is the ITF's prosecution of these cases (in)competent)?

Further, how many times has the ITF agreed with a player's defense/excuse and dropped a doping case (e.g., Andre Agassi)? How many players have been exonerated by their national anti-doping body (e.g., Alberto Contador's exoneration by Spanish authorities) and the ITF decided not to appeal the decision? Who are the players and what are the substances? Were the adverse results obtained from in-competition or out-of-competition tests? How many unreported provisional suspensions occurred as a result of these test results?

Despite these questions, I have yet to see one tennis writer even acknowledge the discrepancy that exists between the adverse findings and violations, let alone question why the discrepancy exists.

Let's not kid ourselves. There are tens of millions of dollars at stake in tennis, creating huge incentives to cheat. Three tennis players (but no cyclists) made the Forbes Top 50 highest paid athletes list (Federer, Nadal, and Sharapova).

When will there be an honest and open discussion about the use of performance enhancing drugs in tennis?

FYI: Adverse Analytical Finding means the presence of Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers (including elevated quantities of endogenous substances) or evidence of the Use of a Prohibited Method.

Sources for Doping Statistics & Cases:

ITF Anti-Doping Decisions

2010 WADA Anti-Doping Organization Activity Summary: ITF had 6 adverse findings against 3 violations.

2009 WADA Report: ITF had 10 adverse findings against 4 violations.

2008 WADA Report: ITF had 14 adverse findings against 3 violations.

Epic Fail: Out-Of-Competition Testing in Tennis

2012-01-10T15:35:00.000-08:00

For years, anti-doping experts have said that out of competition testing is a key tool for reducing cheating. Indeed, the WADA states that "Given that out-of-competition doping controls can be conducted without notice to athletes, they are one of the most powerful means of deterrence and detection of doping and are an important step in strengthening athlete and public confidence in doping-free sport."

So, what are sports doing?

Tennis is far behind in out of competition testing.

I've compared out-of-competition (OOC) testing in tennis with that of international sports bodies that, in my view, have a history of, or reputation for, doping: Athletics (e.g., track & field), Cycling, Swimming, and Rugby. The data in the tables above go from 2008-2010 (the last year available for the sports selected).

The data show that tennis ranks dead last by a large margin in the absolute number of OOC tests conducted among the comparators. Cycling's testing volumes are of no surprise. However, in 2010, rugby conducted 3.7 times more OOC tests than tennis even though rugby carried out about 800 fewer anti-doping tests overall. Also, swimming conducted 5.4 times as many while doing 200 total few tests.

The second main finding is that not only do these other international governing bodies conduct more out of competition tests in absolute terms, but such tests account for a substantial proportion (if not outright majority) of their anti-doping testing. For 2010, they're all above 45 percent. Tennis OOC testing accounts for a paltry 11 percent of total anti-doping tests.

Clearly, tennis is not only late to the OOC game, but they're making little use of the tool. It's worth noting that out of competition testing in tennis is primarily focussed on players that must submit whereabouts info. Those players are the ATP top 50, WTA top 50, top 10 doubles players and top 5 men, women and quad wheelchair players. Therefore, given the minimal amount of OOC testing conducted, most were concentrated on about 155 players, meaning (1) the overwhelming majority of tennis players will never be face an ITF out of competition doping test in their entire career; and (2) a top player will typically face no more than a single OOC test a year. The end result: The chances of getting caught for doping out of competition are slim to none. Yet players complain about the testing on twitter...

Does the above sound like an effective out of competition program that would deter performance enhancing drug use? Why is tennis making such pathetic use "one of the most powerful means of deterrence and detection of doping"?

Makes you wonder what "modern test distribution methods" they're using.

These facts should trouble any tennis fan (and journalist) who wants the sport to be clean (rather than those who like to pretend it is).

Data Sources:

ITF (Tennis)

FINA (Swimming)

IAAF (Athletics)

UCI (Cycling)

IRB (Rugby)

"Modern test distribution methods" (Updated Jan. 10: Rafa's Racquet)

2012-01-09T05:24:00.000-08:00

I was doing some random internet searching and came across an interesting ITF anti-doping rule change.

Prior to 2011, the ITF's anti-doping rules for in-competition testing stated: "...in addition to any other Players that the ITF selects for Testing, all finalists and losing semi-finalists in each Competition at a selected Event will ordinarily be tested." (See F.3 in the 2010 Rules)

However, the following change was made for 2011:

F.3 A requirement to test every player who reaches the semi-finals of the competition is no longer appropriate. Modern test distribution methods are more sophisticated than that. Removing the requirement gives the ITF the flexibility to decide (in conjunction with its partners) how best to allocate its testing resources. (See here and here)

Do you recall any member of the media reporting this?

Worth The Risk? (Added January 9)

Arf poses an interesting question in the comments. Is it worth the risk to dope in-competition? Actually, the question should be, is it risky to dope in-competition?

Here are some numbers to think about:

Possible Testing Opportunities versus Actual Samples Taken

At the 2010 Australian Open, the ITF took 78 male specimens for doping tests. Those 78 samples covered singles, doubles, and mixed doubles. If the ITF tested every male player after every match played then they would need to take 568 samples (128 player singles draw; 64 team doubles draw; 32 team mixed). Thus, the 78 samples actually taken represent 13.7 percent of the total sample opportunities during the course of the tournament. And 8 of those 78 samples would have been reserved for the singles, doubles, and mixed doubles finalists.

What does this mean? First, it means that unless you make the finals, you're not likely to get tested, especially in the early rounds. Second, it means that if you make the finals, that will likely be the only time you're tested. Third, if you get tested early in a major tournament, you're not likely going to get tested again unless you make the finals.

Case in point: At the 2009 Australian Open Finals, Federer and Nadal were each tested once. After the finals.

I think this indicates that micro-doping during competition is probably quite well established. A doper would love to be tested after winning their 1st round match. After that, they could pretty much micro-dose all the way to the finals with almost zero risk.

Latest On Rafa's Racquet (Added Jan. 10)

From tennis.com: "Nadal and company indeed chose to make only miniscule changes to the racquet's "overall weight," focusing instead on slightly altering its balance and swingweight...

WEIGHT: 314 grams / 11.08 ounces —— versus 311 grams / 10.97 ounces, in 2011

BALANCE: 32.63 centimeters / 5.2 points headlight —— versus 32.50 centimeters / 5.6 points headlight in 2011

SWINGWEIGHT: 316 —— versus 308-310, in 2011

"...a three gram difference, at least in a laboratory setting, has an extremely small effect on a racquet's performance. But even though a three gram difference, for all practical purposes, does not change much in the way of racquet to ball contact, that added weight does change how the racquet feels in hands of an experienced player."

A Weighty Question: 3 Grams (Updated; Jan. 7)

2012-01-06T18:36:00.000-08:00

Details on Nadal's racquet weight story:

"Babolat, who regularly support professional players and respond to their precise needs, told us that rather than focussing on the overall weight of the racket, they have fine-tuned Nadal’s racket swing weight by seven points to make it more head heavy and provide extra punch through the air."

Anyone out there know whether this would make a real difference in power (if true)? Also, if it is a significant weight/difference, would a professional tennis player actually make a change like this?

For context, Nadal currently uses "the Babolat AeroPro Drive GT. In its stock iteration, the AeroPro Drive is 11.3 ounces (strung) and balanced 4 points head-light."

Updated #1

I did some additional internet searching and the stock "swingweight" of a Babolat AeroPro Drive GT is 331. Thoughts?

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda (Added Jan. 7)

First, Nadal says they added "three more grams on the top of the racquet." Enough to do anything?

January 6, 2012
Rafael Nadal
DOHA, QATAR
G. MONFILS/R. Nadal
6‑3, 6‑4

Q. Can you talk a little bit about the reason why your new racquet is a little bit heavier? And when did you think about that and when did you decide to try this?

RAFAEL NADAL: We thought about that after Wimbledon, but I, you know, I was injured. I played all Wimbledon, injury. You are remember in my fourth against Del Potro? I had problems, so I finished the tournament playing with infiltrations every day.
So after Wimbledon I had to stop for three weeks. I only was able to practice five days before Montreal, Cincinnati. So I did not have the chance to do it.
We wanted to do it after US Open, and we put it a little bit too much weight on the racquet. So I felt that I was ‑‑it was very difficult for me to have the control of the ball, and I had to play Tokyo and Shanghai. So we felt that it was too much, too much risky for those two tournaments.
After that, in theory, I had to go to Bercy so I didn't have a lot of time. So we decided to do it at the end of the season. Worse thing is, in theory, we had to practice one month with a new racquet. Finally I get injury on the knees in the final of Davis Cup, and after, on the shoulder. So I wasn't able to play.
So we reduce a little bit the weight in the beginning we prepared the racquet. So now we just playing with three more grams on the top of the racquet. But if you put three grams in a different part of racquet, is nothing, but in the top, yes. You feel.
We decided to do that, because we believed that with this racquet, can help a little bit with the serve, can help a little bit to hit the ball a little bit longer with less, how to say? We found it to play that aggressive, to play a little bit easier, and to hit the winners sometimes can help me, no?
So I need time, but I felt positive things during all this tournament, and, you know, I thought it would be much more difficult than what there is today. So I'm very happy.

Some Psychology

2012-01-06T05:34:00.000-08:00

The Heart of the Matter

Why do doping issues get little coverage from tennis "journalists" (aside from the obvious career prospects implications) and why do many fans react so angrily to doping talk?

Reason One: Confirmation Bias

"The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions."

Reason Two: The Backfire Effect

"The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking."

"The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger."

Of course, I've probably been guilty of the above sins on a few occasions. And I'm sure that there are some that believe that's all I do.

However, these concepts help explain why nobody pursued the 49 "no sample collected" out of competitions test from 2009; or the Serena Williams-Panic Room story, or exposed Dr. Igor's SCIO device that was used on Djokovic, or the circumstances surrounding Serena's "foot injury" and subsequent health scares (here and here).

Looking for the truth and analyzing facts may have proved to be inconvenient and so the stories were either ignored, downplayed, or rationalized without any research or logic.

Offered Without Comment (Updated Jan. 6)

2012-01-04T19:15:00.000-08:00

January 4, 2012
Rafael Nadal Post-Match Interview
DOHA, QATAR

Q. Your last season was pretty good, but you never really found the quality of serve you had at the end of 2010, especially at the US Open. Do you agree with that? Do you have an explanation?

RAFAEL NADAL: Yeah, is true. My serve worked really well at the US Open, especially, so let's say US Open and maybe Tokyo and Bangkok, yes. These three tournaments worked fantastic. Later, not that good.
So let's just say that's not the normal thing. Normal thing is have a worse serve than what I had in the US Open and Bangkok and Tokyo. That's the true, no?
Sometimes you get the inspiration. I felt that I needed the serve to win the US Open, so the inspiration was there. The emotions was there and I had the feeling that weeks, no?
You know, most of the time in my career I won all the things without that serve, so is something important, for sure. Is fantastic if you have the chance to serve like I did during all the US Open 2010, but seriously, I think having a good serve, comfortable serve. I cannot say can be enough but can work well...

What Can Inspiration Do For You? (Added Jan. 5)

For comparison, here are the numbers for Djokovic:

Data Sources

Nadal
2011
2010

Djokovic
2011
2010
___________________________________________________________________________

An Interview With: Rafael Nadal (Added Jan. 6)
Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Q. Are you concerned at all about your serve? You were broken five times the whole tournament 2010, six times tonight.

RAFAEL NADAL: Is impossible to win this year (laughter). No, I am joking. Sure, the serve was important part of my game last year. But the serve help me a lot to win the tournament, but I won the tournament because I was playing fantastic from the baseline. So my game is from the baseline. I never gonna be a big, you know my serve never going to be huge, I know that. But I can improve my serve, and that is what I am doing. Today I lost my serve six times. In my opinion, was not a fault of my serve. You know, was a fault that he was returning very fast all the time. Sometimes I hit the very good serves, 126, 128, and the ball came back unbelievable fast, no? And, you know, I was enough fast I was not enough fast to play aggressive with the forehand. That's because I was a little bit more nervous. But that's the sport; that's the game. I lost six time the serve. Was not my serve, the fault.

Of course, Nadal later lamented that part of the reason he lost to the US Open final to Djokokic in 2011 was the lack of free points he won off his serve:

An Interview With: Rafael Nadal
Monday, September 12, 2011

Q. What made Novak's return of serve so effective tonight? What was the mental challenge for you of facing break points so many times?

RAFAEL NADAL: His return is fantastic always, not this year. Seems like this year, you know, he learned a lot of things, and in my opinion it's not like this. He's doing few things better, but he was fantastic player before. And second thing, my serve worked bad tonight. That's the true. If I have to say two things about I'm not happy tonight, it's my serve for sure the first one. Because if my serve works really well, I know I have the challenge, the mental challenge for sure. Losing six times affects in the match, and you have to know that. And I know. I was ready for that. So accept everything, to fight every ball, and that's what I did. So I'm happy about that. But I didn't have free points during all that games. I didn't have not one free point in both sets. A few moments that you are tired and the few moments you really need something, I never had these free points. Last year I had; I didn't have this year. That change a lot the match. My serve has to come back to another level.

It all still begs the question: What happened to the serve?

Public Disclosure: Adverse/Positive Tests, Provisional Suspensions, Exonerations

2012-01-04T18:48:00.000-08:00

Enough of the fun stuff. I've received some enquiries regarding disclosure of positive test results, provisional suspensions, and findings of non-guilt. So, I thought a final post about the topic would help. Please forgive the length as there are a few exerpts from Codes/Rules.

The rules governing public disclosure are found in the WADA Code

14.2.1 The identity of any Athlete or other Person who is asserted by an Anti-Doping Organization to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, may be publicly disclosed by the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility only after notice has been provided to the Athlete or other Person in accordance with Articles 7.2, 7.3 or 7.4, and to the applicable Anti-Doping Organizations in accordance with Article 14.1.2.

And,

14.2.3 In any case where it is determined, after a hearing or appeal, that the Athlete or other Person did not commit an anti-doping rule violation, the decision may be disclosed publicly only with the consent of the Athlete or other Person who is the subject of the decision. The Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility shall use reasonable efforts to obtain such consent, and if consent is obtained, shall publicly disclose the decision in its entirety or in such redacted form as the Athlete or other Person may approve.

From the above, it is clear that the WADA allows sports governing bodies to publicly announce both positive test results and decisions finding that no anti-doping rule violation was committed. However, the key word in the above rules is the word "may," meaning that it's up to the governing body to decide whether it wants to disclose. The only mandatory rule is that decisions finding that an anti-doping violation occurred must be made public.

The ITF takes full advantage of the discretion allowed in the WADA Code. Article 13.3 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme:

13.3 The ITF shall use its reasonable endeavours to ensure that Persons under its control do not publicly identify Participants whose Samples have resulted in Adverse Analytical Findings or Atypical Findings, or who have a Provisional Suspension imposed on them, or are alleged to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under this Programme, unless and until an Independent Tribunal has determined that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed, and/or the Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been admitted...

To be clear, this means it is possible for a tennis player to test positive for a prohibited substance (and be provisionally suspended) with everything kept confidential if the player is exonerated. This means players can still "pull an Agassi."

Far from speculation, this, in fact, appears to be occurring according to the data on adverse findings versus doping violations in tennis.

Have other sports made the same choice? Here a couple of examples from two sports that have had doping scandals and decided that transparency is the best policy:

Track & Field

August 19, 2011: "Michael Rodgers, an athlete in the sport of track and field, who tested positive for the prohibited stimulant methylhexaneamine at the 2011 Sport e Solidarieta in Lignano Sabbiador, Italy in July, accepted a provisional suspension today and voluntarily withdrew himself from the 2011 IAAF World Championships set to take place in Daegu, Korea beginning on August 27, 2011. Mr. Rodgers, who was scheduled to compete for the U.S. in the 100m and 4x100m relay, maintains his innocence and claim that he did not intentionally ingest the prohibited substance, however, he has decided to withdraw from the World Championships out of fairness to the other athletes competing there so that they may do so without the distraction of his positive test. Mr. Rodgers’ lawyer, David Greifinger, has indicated to USADA that he will continue to investigate the cause of Mr. Rodgers’ test and will decide with his client how Mr. Rodgers will proceed."

Cycling

23.11.2011

Description: The UCI has advised Australian rider Deon Michael Locke that he is provisionally suspended. The decision to provisionally suspend this rider was made in response to a report from the WADA accredited laboratory in Beijing indicating an Adverse Analytical Finding of Phentermine in a urine sample collected from him in an in competition test (Tour of Hainan) on 23 October 2011.

The provisional suspension of Mr. Locke remains in force until a hearing panel convened by the Australian Cycling Federation determines whether he has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 21 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

Mr. Locke has the right to request and attend the analysis of his B sample.

Under the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the UCI is unable to provide any additional information at this time.

Why doesn't tennis provide the same level of transparency and disclosure as other sports? Why does tennis make less disclosure than the WADA Code permits?

Why does the tennis media say nothing?

More importantly, why doesn't the WADA make such disclosure mandatory and eliminate the discretion currently afforded by the Code?

History Is A Good Teacher (Part 3)

2012-01-04T07:14:00.000-08:00

Time for a break from Nadal's shoulder and racquet non sequiturs and Serena's drama (e.g., this and this). Instead, a couple of further observations on the article about Irish swimmer Michelle Smith:

1. "The directive came down that nobody was to discuss drugs and Michelle Smith on national television."

2. "Irish Times columnist Tom Humphries resigned after his paper killed two of his stories about de Bruin. One came during the Olympics and mentioned that other swimmers, including American Janet Evans, were questioning her sudden ascendancy in swimming. The other came after he went to Holland and heard experts talk about performance-enhancing drugs and the unlikelihood of a 26-year-old female swimmer blooming late. He quit for three weeks before going back to work."

Who thinks such media practices still exist today?

History Is A Good Teacher (Part 2; Updated Jan. 3rd, #3)

2012-01-02T14:31:00.000-08:00

Continuing the theme of the previous post of looking back at history...

US Open, 2010: Rocket Man!

"For all his talents, the 24-year-old Spaniard is riding a vastly improved serve, as much as anything, toward a first U.S. Open title. Against fourth-round opponent Feliciano Lopez on Tuesday night, Nadal uncorked a 135-mph serve, his fastest in the tournament and perhaps of his career.

"His average first serve speed through four matches in New York is 12 mph faster than a year ago (119 vs. 107). His second serve speed also has increased (89 vs. 86). In 2009 his fastest delivery was 123 mph."
____________________________________________________________________

Q. The improvements we're seeing in your serve, is this a result of a change in your technique or your motion, or is it more a matter of confidence and attitude?
RAFAEL NADAL: Well, seriously, I wasn't serve -- I didn't serve very well in the previous tournaments. But I started to serve well the week before the tournament, a few days before the tournament start.
I changed a little bit the grip, but that's all.

US Open, 2011: What Happened Man?!

"Nadal’s average first serve speed slowed to only 107 mph, and without that weapon, he won a disastrously low 52% of first serve points (Djokovic won 65%), and his second serve speed average dropped to 81 mph, while his second serve points won plummeted to 42%."

2012: Racquet Man?!

"Rafael Nadal has switched to a heavier racquet in order to add more speed to his serve."

Welcome to the world of professional tennis!

Say What? (Added Jan. 3rd, #1)

Here is Nadal's interview in Doha from yesterday:

Two points:

On his shoulder injury: "...I had to stop for my shoulder. I really couldn't play with my forehand and serve. So I stopped for two weeks. So I was doing working in the gym...The shoulder is better, I think. The shoulder needs more power, because when you have an injury there, the rest, the muscles around lose the power. But the problem, the injury, is much better. I am able to play today with no pain, so that's important."

On adding weight to his racquet: "...I trying to play with a little bit heavier racquet and on the top of the racquet to get a little bit more power...I try to play with a little bit heavier than what this racquet is today, but we take the position that we have to change the racquet or we try to have to change the racquet. Not the racquet, only the weight, no?"

What Next? A Sling Around His Arm? (Added Jan. 3rd, #2)

"Nadal’s recent public statements have not dripped with confidence, and his appearance wasn’t helped by a wheeled racquet bag that looked like a suitcase—presumably to spare his troublesome shoulder..."

More from Rafa! (Added Jan. 3rd, #3)

Here are excerpts from Nadal's interview in Doha following the Kohlschreiber match:

Q. How is your shoulder doing?

RAFAEL NADAL: My shoulder is fine. I said yesterday it's not 100% perfect. I feel something when I start at the beginning of practice, beginning of when I start to play, but later, after three, four minutes, when I get warmed up, I feel the shoulder with perfect conditions. So that's important thing. You know, the shoulder needs days like today to get the power, you know, but in general I'm happy.

Q. Are you starting to get a bit of rhythm with the new racquet? Are you starting to get the feel of it?

RAFAEL NADAL: I think I did a few things very well today. I hit very good with my backhand. I really believe that the racquet can help me with the backhand.
With the forehand I felt I hit the ball most of the times where I want to hit the ball. Few days ago and yesterday in the practice, you know, when I tried to hit the ball, sometimes I hit it a little bit left, sometimes too early. That's why I didn't have totally the control of that, you know, the speed of the racquet, no?
But today when we have rallies, I really felt that I have really positive control of the ball. Not perfect, for sure, but in general I think I felt most of the shots the right way. So that's really positive.

History Is A Good Teacher (Part 1)

2012-01-02T07:50:00.001-08:00

Let's kick off the New Year with a look back...way back. Not many people (want to) remember this story from the mid-1990s (courtesy of The Seattle Times). That's a pity because it contains many elements we've seen in the news recently. Some excerpts:

"IRISH SWIMMER MICHELLE SMITH de Bruin's fairy-tale rise to stardom came crashing down after she was banned for tampering with a drug test...

"...a 26-year-old swimmer regarded as a mediocre international performer turned into a dominant star almost overnight...

"...For a brief while, Ireland embraced the fiction of a swimmer well past her prime who suddenly discovered talent that hadn't been there before...

"...he saw a different woman than he had known, a woman with huge arms and shoulders...'The Michelle I remembered had been round and feminine and carried not a lot of excessive weight, but some...I looked at her and said, `My God, what have you been taking?'

"...De Bruin's eventual explanation was that her boyfriend, Dutch discus thrower Erik de Bruin, had come up with a special training program that unlocked her hidden abilities...

"...Over the next two years she set 43 Irish swimming records...

"...Ireland is a land of patriotic people, and suddenly it had a star on its hands. It didn't matter that there wasn't a 50-meter pool in the country...

"...Before Atlanta, her best time in the 400-meter intermediate medley had been 4 minutes 58.94 seconds. That came in 1992, when she briefly considered retirement. At the 1996 Olympics, she won in 4:39.18...

"...In January 1997, FINA officials complained about de Bruin's unavailability for a random drug test. A year later, when two local drug testers showed up at the de Bruin home in Kells, they initially couldn't get past the locked gates...When they were finally allowed inside, they lost sight of de Bruin for four to six minutes. When de Bruin handed over her urine sample, it smelled of whiskey, the testers said...

So, anything from the above sound familiar? Hmmmm...

1. "When things started to change, Djokovic hushed up, declining to talk about his new training routine.

"I can't talk about it," Djokovic said at the French Open, "because it's private."

Last month, about two weeks before the start of the U.S. Open, Djokovic again demurred when asked about the diet.

"I cannot tell you everything," said Djokovic, who grew up at his parents' pizza parlor on Mt. Kopaonik in southern Serbia. "There are things that I keep for myself."

2. Serena Williams: Locked in Panic Room Over Drug Test Mix-Up

3. "Bernard Tomic has emerged from the off-season looking more like the powerhouse Tennis Australia so desperately needs...Gone are the long scarecrow arms of his mid-teens, replaced by a pair of cannons..."

4. "[Janko] Tipsarevic, number nine in the end-of-year-rankings, described his swift rise from the mid-40s [at age 27] as a "dream come true" and is determined to continue his climb up the ladder..."My determination made the difference."

Happy New Year!

2011-12-31T15:38:00.000-08:00

AFP/Getty Images

AFP Photo

AP Photo

Here We Go Again... (Updated #2)

2011-12-29T07:10:00.000-08:00

"Rafael Nadal plans to take several weeks off after the Australian Open to recover from a nagging shoulder injury.

"The second-ranked Nadal said Thursday the injury surfaced before the ATP World Tour Finals in November and that he was still 'not 100 percent.'"

What? (Updated #1)

"A fitter than ever Bernard Tomic has emerged from the off-season looking more like the powerhouse Tennis Australia so desperately needs.

"With his breakthrough season still fresh in the memory banks, the 19-year-old hit the practice court yesterday at Queensland Tennis Centre carrying more muscle on his previously slender frame than ever before.

"Gone are the long scarecrow arms of his mid-teens, replaced by a pair of cannons..."

This Could Never Happen In Tennis, Right? (Updated #2)

"Three former employees of Hull FC — a player, a coach and the chief executive – have been banned from rugby league for a total of seven years after a six-month investigation by UK Anti-Doping uncovered a conspiracy to cover up a drug offence."

ATP Rank: 882 (Updated #3)

2011-12-23T07:16:00.000-08:00

Another big name caught!

What did he do exactly? (See Updates)

"Swedish tennis player Lucas Renard has been suspended for six months and fined US$5,000 after admitting an offense under Article D of the 2011 Uniform Tennis Anti-Corruption Program.

Four of the six months period of ineligibility will be suspended on the basis that the player commits no future violation of the Program, that he exhibits continuous good conduct and that he attends anti-corruption education training.

The case against 19-year old Mr Renard was based on the findings of a Tennis Integrity Unit investigation, which was then considered by an independent Anti-Corruption Hearing Officer.

The sanction applies with immediate effect and means that the player is not eligible to participate in any tournament or competition organised or authorised by the governing bodies of professional tennis.

Mr Renard’s offense contravened Article D.1.d of the Uniform Tennis Anti-Corruption Program - ‘No Covered Person shall, directly or indirectly, contrive or attempt to contrive the outcome or any other aspect of any Event.’

Consistent with the confidentiality of the anti-corruption disciplinary process, no further details of the case will be made public."

Update #1:

According to Swedish media (Thanks, arf), Renard's father said that the violation involved Lucas attempting to get a lucky loser slot into a Finnish tournament by making a proposal involving the payment of prize money in return for the slot. Why could the TIU just disclose this information.

Update #2:

Interview with Lucas Renard by SvD. Violation occurred at the Challenger tournament in Tampere, Finland (Google Translation):

- I had lost in the qualifying finals, but would go in as a lucky loser in the main tournament. When I arrived five minutes late for the match was my place of another. Then I was dumb enough to offer a player 600 euros if I got his place in the main tournament.

How were you really?

- I do not know. I was hugely disappointed that I missed the opportunity to go in as a lucky loser and I really wanted to play.

Finn Sami Huurinainen, 30 years, said flat refusal to Renard offer and it was a snackis which soon reached the ATP management.

– Some time later made a few guys from the ATP and ITF and said they would come to Stockholm to talk to me. Then I realized what it was but I never thought I would be convicted.

Why not?

- I did not think they looked so serious about it. What I did was very stupid but still not planned or so but it just came out of me in that moment when I was so disappointed.

Are there often that players are trying to buy into tournaments?

- I know nothing about. It was certainly the first time I did it. And last be understood. Now I have learned a lesson, says Lucas Renard who had a good season but in recent months, weighed down by our investigation.

- I have found it difficult to focus on the matches and so it is nice to Judgement come. Now I can put this behind me, says Lucas, who received notice that the suspension of the practice will stop at two months.

- Four of the six months are suspended off so I can play again in February.

Update #3 (More for Sweden)

"Tennis has a problem with ethics...A ruling against a fixed star would disrupt not only the player but also to the sport in general and there's no getting away from the idea that this is the reason why the biggest cheater goes free."

TIU, ITF, ATP: Keep cracking down on the big fish!

Study On Doping In Racket Sports

2011-12-21T18:46:00.000-08:00

Title (Full Text Available): Is there a danger for myopia in anti-doping education? Comparative analysis of substance use and misuse in Olympic racket sports calls for a broader approach

Published In: Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy; Volume 6, 2011

Some Excerpts:

Racket sports are typically not associated with doping. Despite the common characteristics of being non-contact and mostly individual, racket sports differ in their physiological demands, which might be reflected in substance use and misuse (SUM). The aim of this study was to investigate SUM among Slovenian Olympic racket sport players in the context of educational, sociodemographic and sport-specific factors...

Between 10% and 24% of the studied males would use doping if the practice would help them achieve better results in competition and if it had no negative health consequences; a further 5% to 10% indicated potential doping behaviour regardless of potential health hazards. Females were generally less oriented toward SUM than their male counterparts...

Whilst both arms of WADA's anti-doping effort represent heroic measures to keep doping out of sports, laboratory statistics shows no significant change between 2003 and 2009 with the proportion of adverse and atypical findings ranging between 1.50% and 2.12%. Self-reports, alternative analyses and epidemilogic estimations indicate that the actual prevalence of doping is greater than this official statistic and ranges up to 40%...

The average duration of tennis matches depends on the type of court but typically ranges from 120 to 180 minutes. For example, at Wimbledon in 2005, the average duration of tennis matches was 137 minutes, whereas the average match in the Australian Open that same year lasted for 154 minutes. A major determinant of the outcome of a game is an individual's physical fitness, which can be influenced by SUM...

A minority of athletes (10% in badminton, 15% in table tennis and 24% in tennis) indicated that they would use doping if assured that it would help them achieve competitive results without any negative health consequences. However, 5% to 10% of the studied male athletes declared that they might potentially dope regardless of the possible health hazard...

"Confidence" Game

2011-12-19T06:41:00.000-08:00

Steve Kettmann, December 17, 2011, New York Times: "The truth is that a big part of steroids’ attraction was always mental. Jason Giambi, an admitted juicer who now plays for the Colorado Rockies, once told me the key to being a big-league hitter was to “feel sexy” up at home plate, and he meant it far more literally than I understood at the time. Extra testosterone does a lot for the body, but it also gives an athlete a feeling of being unstoppable..."

Greg Garber: "Djokovic's confidence is currently the game's greatest weapon."

Jose Canseco (2005): "A lot of it is psychological...I mean, you really believe you have an edge. You feel the strength, and the stamina."

Drop Shot Dispatch: "When Nadal plays without confidence, he pushes shots into the center of the court, most of them failing to reach beyond the service box on the other side of the net."

Victor Conte: "Testosterone gels, creams and patches will clear an MLB player’s system within a matter of hours and be below the 4 to 1 T/E ratio allowable in urine...A player could possibly use a fast-acting form of testosterone at night after a game to help with recovery and their T/E ratio would be within the normal range by the time they would get to the ballpark the next evening...The T/E ratio testing is basically a joke for players using fast-acting testosterone delivery systems."

Steve Bierley, November 2009: "Rafael Nadal warns lack of form and confidence is only temporary...There is no doubt that Nadal appears, for whatever reason, to have lost some of the bulk from his upper body, perhaps to put less stress on his knees, though the medical opinions vary about the efficacies of such a move."

Victor Conte: "HGH is not effective unless it is used in conjunction with testosterone or other anabolic steroids...It's important to understand that HGH is not an anabolic agent. It is an anti-catabolic agent. It basically helps to reduce muscle degradation and enables a player to maintain the gains they’ve made using steroids for a longer period of time. By itself, HGH has been shown to have no significant performance-enhancing effects."

French Open 2011: "Rafael Nadal's confidence growing"

US Open 2011, Novak Djokovic: "The confidence level that is very high at this moment for me helps me to get into these big matches and go for shots that you know, maybe in some [past] situations I wouldn't. I wasn't going for those shots in the past couple years."

Victor Conte: "A player could use micro-doses of testosterone after every single game and stay below the 4-to-1 ratio. I think this is an opportunity to make a change. CIR testing – as a screen test, not as a follow-up – would help level the playing field."

Nadal, September 2010: "I rely on my confidence to help me win...You have to be confidence to play well on match days."

David Howman, Director General, WADA (2011): "From micro dosing to manipulation, the clever doper, aided, abetted and considerably financed by clever entourage members, continues to evade detection through the analytical process. And we continue to be haunted by the impunity with which, for example, many treat human growth hormone."

ATP World Tour, May 2011: "[Djokovic] Rivals Agree Confidence Is Key"

Analyst Leif Shiras, November 2011: "This time of year his energy level is usually low and from what I saw of him at Tokyo and in Beijing [in losses to Andy Murray and Florian Mayer] he was lacking that little spark. Nadal is a confidence player who wills his way to win and if he’s lacking fire, it’s hard for him to grind opponents down."

"Anabolic steroids and the mind", Medical Journal of Australia, 1996: "Being psychoactive substances, anabolic steroids are expected to produce some degree of psychological change after they have been taken for some time. Indeed, these changes (which include an increase in self-confidence, energy and motivation), if they allow people to train harder, may well be one of the main factors explaining the mechanism of action of anabolic steroids."

In The News (Updated Dec. 17, #2)

2011-12-16T09:00:00.000-08:00

They won't: "Athletes need to break their silence on curse of doping"

When will the media apologize to Yannick Noah?: "Spanish police arrest 18 in doping ring"

Can't say I disagree: "WADA are really ineffectual. To my mind they are not even doing a reasonable job. For me the ethics surrounding sport are the only thing that makes it pure and provides as close to a level playing field as possible."

Indeed: "I do think it's time that sport was as healthy as it possibly can be and, at the moment in terms of drugs, I don't believe that a strong enough position is taken."

Tennis writers, anyone?: "Braun looks like a cheater, but baseball writers look worse"

Interesting: Five countries have joined forces in an effort to improve drug testing standards around the world

Hmmm...: "[Liam] Broady: I need to train like Rafael Nadal"

Added Dec. 17 (#1):

"[For 2012] Djokovic said he wouldn't be changing his preparations, which last year included the introduction of a gluten-free diet which he partly credits for his stunning improvement..."I am sticking with the same regime, and my diet and the same way of practicing," Djokovic said. "Nothing has changed.""

And this: "Novak Djokovic says he briefly abandoned his gluten-free diet to toast a season of triumph with a glass of wine."

Two points on this: (1) People with real allergies don't typically make a conscious decision to eat what they're allergic to; in fact, they do the opposite; and (2) Wine shouldn't contain gluten (although some reds might have very trace amounts), so what is Djokovic talking about? Again, don't expect any critical thinking from the sycophantic press.

Added Dec. 17 (#2):

Hmmmm....looks like national federations are stepping-up their own anti-doping efforts as the Olympics get closer. And it looks like they are doing tests on their own timetable (i.e., not using the 1-hour whereabouts time). Will we see some performance declines in 2012?

The Last Word (Updated Dec. 15, #4)

2011-12-12T17:41:00.000-08:00

Shutting Down For 2011

This will be the last post of 2011, barring some big news (which always seems to occur). I may post some articles, if anything interesting comes along, but no commentary.

As noted in the Year In Review, every controversial story in tennis (and there have been many) has been largely ignored by the tennis media.

Instead, the news was broken by other members of the press, notably an investigative journalist at the Boston Globe (Bob Hewitt allegations) and TMZ (Serena Williams Panic Room). So, at least there is hope that someone will do actual reporting, but it is definitely not going to come from anyone in the mainstream. They have no incentive to do such real work. Indeed, they have rather strong incentives (e.g., access to players, coaches, official events) to look the other way, deny, or downplay any problems.

I think the main lesson for the year is to expect nothing serious from the tennis media. They ain't going to deliver. Therefore, don't get too worked-up when you read their stuff and find it devoid of content and critical thinking. Make it a New Year's Resolution.

Below is one pretty important development, some random quotes, and news. Enjoy the holidays and see you in 2012!

Surprise, Surprise!

In the wake of the Ryan Braun positive test, interesting stories are emerging from baseball insiders. Specifically, many are saying that there have been instances where baseball players have tested positive, but have been exonerated. These positive tests and the decisions to exonerate were not made public. Sound familiar? Yes, but when have you ever heard a tennis writer talk about this, except in reference to Agassi or the Nandrolone scandal? Yet we know for a fact that the practice continues with the ITF having many more adverse test results from 2008-2010 than doping violations. This information is in the public realm, but is not being reported. We also know from e-mail correspondence with the ITF that their policy is that they "will not comment on any case unless and until there is a decision that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed, in which case the decision is published in accordance with the requirements of the WADA Code."

The bottom line: If some baseball journalists/insiders have knowledge of buried positive tests there must be some tennis journalists/insiders that have similar knowledge, but they are not talking about it. For shame.

Read This

Here's an interview with Dwayne Bray, senior coordinating producer of ESPN's Enterprise Unit. He heads the investigative journalist team at ESPN that broke the Ryan Braun story.

Here's an excerpt:
Sports is now a multi-billion industry. Sports has always mirrored the real world. But because people want to use sports sometimes as an escape, to suspend real life, they sometimes think their heroes are not affected by these stories. But they are affected by these stories. I just think its important we don't sweep things under the rug...
Good stuff.

Read this too: Death of the interview

Journalists Say The Darndest Things

For kicks, I've pulled some choice quotes from Jon Wertheim's 2011 writings:

On Nadal: "Nadal has been afflicted by a tennis strain of Seasonal Affective Disorder. Come early fall, he's a shard of the player he was during the first half of the year. (Consider: Not once has he won the year-end championships.) This year, the symptoms were particularly pronounced."

On Djokovic: "His fitness, once so shaky, has, with great abruptness, become an asset."

On abuse: "It's an open secret that many coaches and WTA players have had romantic entanglements in addition to a coaching relationship. And, yes, I agree that there is a power dynamic that often makes this problematic. But I'm not comfortable making the leap to "abuse" unless the player is underage or, obviously, there is an absence of consent. Again, I think these relationships are inherently inadvisable. But if the player is acting on her own volition, what's the WTA to do?"

On doping: "Personally, I am inclined to believe that tennis is, while not entirely clean, overwhelming clean...I think tennis is neither clean nor dirty, neither drug-free nor a cesspool. It's foolish to try and quantify doping, but I think the vast majority of players are clean. Some of this is based on anecdote. Some of this is informed opinion. Some of this is logistical. (It's harder to cheat when you're on the road so much.) Some of this is the incentive structure. (My strong suspicion is that the bulk of the cheaters are players ranked, say, 200 trying to get to 80; less the players ranked in the top 15 trying to become top three.) Some of this is because the testing procedure -- while imperfect and not without loopholes -- is still more rigorous than in other sports. Some of this is because, in the absence of a credible union, cheating players know that, if caught, they have a hell of a fight on their hands."

On the ITF's anti-doping policy: "...for all the flaws and contradictions of tennis' policy, I give it credit for transparency."

Side-Effects of EPO

"One of the dangers of EPO blood doping is that an excessive hematocrit of 70% or more can result in polycythemia. Polycythemia basically is a thickening of the blood that results in decreased blood flow and increases the risk of forming blood clots that can cause a stroke, heart attack, pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis in the legs."

Latest on TUEs in Baseball

For the 2011 season, Major League Baseball granted 111 therapeutic use exemptions: "105 for ADD, two each for hypertension and post-concussion syndrome, and one each for hypogonadism and narcolepsy."

Again, I ask the question: How many tennis players have ADD?

In The News (Added Dec. 13)

1. Nadal: "I have lacked a bit more passion for the game, intensity in my strokes, strength in my legs and mental strength. But the most important thing that is missing is mental strength, which makes all the rest possible [...] Over the last seven years, it has often been said that I had injuries, or whatever. It is true I have obviously had physical problems, but if I had had some serious physical problem, I could not have been among the top two players in the world for the last seven years."

Ummm...Isn't it Nadal himself that always talks about injuries? Did not Nadal take many months off in 2009 because of "chronic tendonitis" in his knees that required PRP injections?

2. Victor Conte on Braun case: "A player could use micro-doses of testosterone after every single game and stay below the 4-to-1 ratio. I think this is an opportunity to make a change. CIR testing – as a screen test, not as a follow-up – would help level the playing field."

3. Must be Yannick Noah's fault: Spanish hurdler Onyia banned for two years

Lest We Forget (Added Dec. 14)

I just realized that I left something out of the "Year in Review" post. The item is that the Yanina Wickmayer and Xavier Malisse appeal saga is still going on. Wickmayer and Malisse received 1-year suspensions for whereabout failures back in 2009, but have managed to continue playing by drawing out the process for 2 years now. Note that it was the Belgian doping authorities that initiated the suspension, not the ITF.

Jelena Jankovic On Off-Season Training (Added Dec. 15, #1)

What is your daily regimen in the off-season?
"I'm training more than I ever have - seven hours a day. I start at 8am and go to 4pm every day except Sunday, a day off. Tennis is five hours and fitness is two hours a day. I'm getting into great shape!"

Laura Robson Misses Trip To Train With Gil Reyes (Added Dec. 15, #2)

"Laura Robson has pulled out of a training trip to Las Vegas because of a stress fracture in her shin [...] The 17-year-old was due to spend three weeks in America at the Adidas player development programme, where she would have worked with Andy Murray's sometime coach Darren Cahill and Gil Reyes, the former trainer of Andre Agassi."

Rafa Explains 2011 (Added Dec. 15, #3)

"Nadal added that he began to encounter problems with his serve after the start of the year, has a "coordination complex," and in order to do better in 2012, that he must serve harder and more accurately. He also said that his reflexes slowed in 2011 and he must return to normal."

Read This (Added Dec. 15, #4)

"This is the same outfit that cracked jokes in the 1990s as players we assumed were juicing reported to spring training with 30 pounds of new muscle and started hitting home runs at crazy rates, whether crazy by their own personal standards or crazy by the standards of baseball history. Literally, we joked about it. How do I know?

Because I was cracking jokes, too.

We'd walk out of a clubhouse after noticing that even relief pitchers and infielders were enormous -- think of a deltoid: enormous -- and we'd chuckle. We'd say, "I wonder how he got that big?" And we'd laugh. Because we knew how he got that big. And because it seemed funny."

2011: Year In Review (Updated: Dec. 12; #3)

2011-12-06T19:04:00.000-08:00

This year was quite a year for tennis, perhaps a watershed moment. I think we saw the true face of tennis in 2011. It was not a pretty sight. The year featured allegations of abuse, doping allegations, match-fixing bans, and even questions about the randomness of the U.S. Open draw.

How did tennis's governing bodies, the tennis media, and players react to these controversies? With shrugs, yawns, total silence, vague non-answers, and/or personal attacks. They were determined to make sure that no negative publicity would stick to the game.

So, what are the top stories this year? Well, first off, let me tell you that the tennis season is too long and needs to be changed...just kidding. In the coming days, I will be presenting my take on the important tennis happenings of 2011. Updates will be marked clearly and dated.

The Bob Hewitt Abuse Allegations (Added Dec. 7; 1 of 2)

The Penn State sexual abuse scandal has dominated headlines recently. Yet, the Boston Globe's story about International Tennis Hall of Fame member Bob Hewitt broke in late August. Bob Hohler, the journalist (a real journalist) covering the story, is not a tennis writer. His reporting is a must read (contrast his writing to what the tennis media writes). HBO covered the story, too.

So, how many tennis writers wrote about it? Good question. Jon Wertheim has made brief reference to it, but that's pretty much it. However, both Wertheim and Steve Tignor found the time to write columns about Penn State. How is this possible?

Well, let's take a look at a response from a director at large of the US Tennis Association about one of the women making allegations of abuse: "Gee, it’s nice of the girl to pop up 35 years later...Give me a break." The director later apologized, but the initial response is telling.

Where are the calls from tennis journalists to the ITF, ATP, WTA, USTA, and other tennis bodies about the measures being taken to protect current young players from abuse? Are the measures strong enough? Is tennis pro-actively trying to eliminate abuse and screen coaches? Or is such abuse institutionalized? How long and how many people have turned a blind eye to this type of abuse over the years?

The silence is astounding.

Serena Williams (Added Dec. 7; 2 of 2)

Could things get any more weird? First, last year, Serena had the mysterious cut foot. This year, she had serious health scares involving a pulmonary embolism followed by a superficial hematoma. No tennis journalist questioned why a elite, young athlete was suffering from such health problems.

The Panic Room story gave us another twist. The Panic Room incident, like the Bob Hewitt scandal, was NOT broken by the tennis media, but by TMZ. And again, like the Bob Hewitt story, the tennis media provided near zero coverage. Who provided follow-up? Who got responses from the WTA, USTA, USADA, and ITF? Yours truly (another non-tennis journalist).

We still don't have official word on whether Serena gave a sample or not. Refusal to give a sample is an anti-doping violation. The ITF's response was cryptic. The media is silent.

Most recently (i.e. last week), Serena commented on her total lack of tournament action since the US Open: "I was tired after the Open and didn't want to go to Asia...Well no, I was injured." What injury...? The media is silent.

Djokovic Becomes Iron Man (Added Dec. 8; #1)

Until this year, Novak Djokovic had a reputation for being a mentally and physically weak player. Indeed, he was thought of as a quitter because of multiple retirements during high profile matches. Such days ended in 2011 (well, for most of the season) after Djokovic hooked up with Dr. Igor and his SCIO device. Now Djokovic can outhit, outrun, and outlast Nadal on any surface, including clay. I've covered SCIO in detail here already (watch the videos), so I'll just note that if you think Djokovic's has a gluten allergy that was diagnosed using a SCIO device then I have some collateralized mortgage obligations I'd like to sell you.

Again, the media is silent, despite the ease by which stories about SCIO and its inventor can be found using Google. Further, there may be people who are wasting their money on SCIO nonsense because they believe it helped Djokovic's health. For this reason alone, you would think that the tennis media would at least feel a public interest obligation to set the record straight. However, the media clearly does not care.

The year also featured a silly story of Djokovic and an "egg" recovery chamber.

ITF Testing Shenanigans (Added Dec. 8; #2)

This topic has a few items. First, this year, the ITF drastically reduced the detail they publish regarding anti-doping testing statistics. The ITF stopped reporting when individual players were tested. This was clearly done in response to the 2010 snafu where they inadverently publish the names of players that had a "no sample collected" out-of-competition test. To his credit, Steve Tignor noticed the change and wrote a column about it, although he attempted to rationalize the change.

Interestingly, even though the ITF stopped reporting the detailed testing data. Players continually tweet about tests (see here and here and here and here), making possible to compile a list of testing dates.

The most recent tweet is a bizarre situation involving Jurgen Melzer. He has received two out-of-competition tests recently. One on November 29th and another on...December 7. Huh? Only eight days apart? This adds to the rush of post-US Open testing that appears to be goingon. Caroline Wozniacki has also tweeted two tests since the US Open. Based on this evidence, one could speculate that a reason the ITF stopped publishing detailed testing statistics is because they have started backloading the out of competition tests to the end of the season. This, of course, is the time when getting a positive test would be minimized.

A final note on testing is that from 2008-2010 the ITF recorded a total of 30 adverse test results against only 1310 doping violations. ~~However, of the 13 violations, only 10 are test-based violations because Odesnik (HGH possession), Malisse (whereabouts), and Wickmayer (whereabouts) committed non-test violations.~~ This leaves 20 samples where testing detected the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers (including elevated quantities of endogenous substances) or evidence of the Use of a Prohibited Method.

What accounts for the difference? What substances were detected? Did players have therapeutic use exemptions? Did they write an Andre Agassi-style note to the ITF?

The media is silent, again.

Yannick Noah (Added Dec. 9; #1)

We covered this story exhaustively (here and here) Further, we had a translation of Noah's comments (and follow-up statement) far before the mainstream press (Thanks again, Vincent). With mountains of evidence on his side (including political interference in the Contador case), Noah stated that Spain didn't not have a strict anti-doping regime. Unlike previous events, the tennis media reacted swiftly and viciously with ad hominem attacks and accusing Noah of making allegations without evidence. These same journalists then displayed an amazing amount of ignorance and intellectual laziness by making baseless defenses of Spain. The Yannick Noah incident revealed clearly that most tennis writers are just shills for the tennis business, writing insubstantial puff pieces.

Substantial Assistance? (Added Dec. 9; #2)

Late last year, the ITF announced that Wayne Odesnik, who had been banned for two years for HGH possession, "had the remaining twelve months of his ineligibility suspended pursuant to Article M.5.3 of the Programme, on account of ongoing Substantial Assistance provided by Mr Odesnik in relation to the enforcement of professional rules of conduct." The nature of this assistance has never been made clear by the ITF. It should also be recall that if not for Australian Customs Officials, Odesnik would have not been banned as he did not test positive for anything. The ITF had no role at all in catching Odesnik.

So, what has happened? Not much. This year has seen only two doping violations. One by journeyman Robert Kendrick for a jet lag pill, resulting in a 1 year suspension (reduced to 8 months after appeal). The second violation was by an unranked player, who was let off with a reprimand.

It's clear that neither of these cases were the result of Odesnik's assistance. And, of course, the fact that this year saw only two small time busts by tennis authorities once again points to an inept anti-doping program. Other sports continue to catch highly ranked athletes, most notably cycling and track. Why is tennis so different?

The other two enforcement actions by tennis authorities were for match-fixing. As with doping, both actions involved minor players. However, the events are noteworthy because both were banned for life, yet nothing about their hearings or decisions were made public. All information remains confidential.

One of the banned players, Daniel Koellerer, had an appeal heard by the Court Abitration of Sport recently. A decision is expected in the new year. Hopefully, the decision will shed light on how the Tennis Integrity Unit operates. There was a rumor that Odesnik may have been involved in the Koellerer bust, but it has never been substantiated. In the case of the second ban, David Savic made a number of critical remarks about his hearing, including that he was scapegoated and that the process was completely lacking in fairness. Savic has said that he will also appeal the decision.

This all raises questions: What was the nature of Odesnik's "assistance"? What has his assistance yielded? Was it naming names? Or was his assistance that of staying silent on certain matters? What accounts for the low number of doping violations in tennis? Why is that only low ranked players are found to be doping? Is it because they can't afford good lawyers? What evidence was used to ban two players for life? How are the TIU's proceedings being run? Are they fair, or are accused players assumed guilty? What are the standards of evidence?

Don't look to the tennis media to ask, or answer, any of these questions.

The Best of the Rest (Added Dec. 10)

What other silliness occurred in the sport of tennis this year? Well, Nadal continued to use (abuse?) medical/trainer timeouts. During the French Open final, with no evidence of movement problems, Nadal took a timeout when down 5-2 to get his foot tape looked at. He never looked back. At Wimbledon, again with no evidence of mobility problems, he called a timeout for a foot injury. He ran like the wind all the way to the finals before being derailed by Djokovic, despite expressing many doubts about the state of his foot.

Also, in his autobiography, Nadal states that the divorce of his parents, rather than knee problems, was the main factor in his 2009 French Open loss, and subsequent Wimbledon withdrawal.

On a different note, a statistical study of Grand Slam Draws suggested that "top two seeds had easier first rounds than statistically probable" at the U.S. Open. I've done some work with statistics and am very sceptical of most analysis, but this story, which points to integrity of the game issues, should have received more coverage and analysis than it did. But, again, the tennis media gave it little notice.

Last, on various occasions this year, David Howman of the WADA has made comments indicating that current anti-doping efforts are not even close to catching doping cheats. On one occasion he noted that he believed that at least ten percent of athletes are doping, but that only one to two percent of tests are positive. More recently, Howman commented that only unsophisticated dopers are getting caught.

Of course, the tennis media paid no heed to these comments.

No Rest For The Weary (Added Dec. 11, #1)

Everytime I think I can take a break, something happens. This time it's a new positive test for elevated and synthetic testosterone levels by National League MVP Ryan Braun of the Milwaukee Brewers (Thanks, Spartina and theack). According to ESPN, Braun was tested during the playoffs and "The positive result was triggered by elevated levels of testosterone." MLB then submitted the sample to a WADA lab for further analysis which "indicated the testosterone was exogenous, meaning it came from outside his body."

However, Braun is saying that he is innocent, although it is important to note that he is not denying the positive result. His spokesman said "There are highly unusual circumstances surrounding this case which will support Ryan's complete innocence and demonstrate there was absolutely no intentional violation of the program." Sounds like a dog ate my homework excuse may be in the works.

Also, the article states that after being told of the positive test, Braun requested that another test be taken, which came back negative. Big deal. The second test only shows that Braun's system was clean at the time of the 2nd test. It should have no bearing on the results of the 1st test. According to ESPN "Braun's representatives acknowledge that a non-positive test would not negate a positive one, they believe the second test shows certain anomalies that will suggest problems with the first. They declined to specify." Stay tuned, I guess.

Kudos to ESPN for breaking this story. Now only if they could get some of their real reporters to get on the tennis beat. Oh, but no top tennis players would take PEDs because they won't help. After all, tennis is a sport of technique and coordination...wait a sec...that sounds kind of like baseball...oh no!!!

More on Braun (Added Dec. 11; #2)

The New York Daily News has come out with some more details on Ryan Braun's positive test. According to their source, Braun's testosterone levels in the positive test were "insanely high, the highest ever for anyone who has ever taken a test, twice the level of the highest test ever taken...The argument before the appeals board won't be that the original ratio was so high and doesn't make sense...but there will be a defense. It's not something he knew or should have known about."

It must be noted that it appears that Braun's team is not denying the test results or the presence of the substance in the sample. Instead, it appears the defense will be attempting to deliver some sort of explanation for the result.

In past, athletes have offered a number of explanations for positive tests, like kissing, too much sex and booze, a vanishing twin, and taking their wife's medication. What will Braun be offering?

Am I That Out Of Touch?(Added Dec. 12; #1)

I'm getting close to wrapping up this post and I thought I puts some links to what professional tennis "journalists" or "writers" are putting down in their year in review write-ups. Here's a few:

1. Rabi Ubha
2. Steve Tignor
3. Christopher Clarey
4. Sports Illustrated on ATP and on the WTA

It almost like we're writing about completely different things!

The Penny Drops For Some (Added Dec. 12; #2)

An interesting article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Looks like the Braun positive has triggered at least one journalist to make an intelligent observation:If the most accepted criteria for skepticism about doping is a dramatic spike in performance, that makes it all the harder to defend that the NFL, NHL and NBA have never suspended a single athlete who ranks among their elite.

Not one!

Is there anyone so naive as to believe that none of these leagues' very best has ever engaged in doping?

Come on.
Will anyone else step-up?

Will Tennis Follow Suit? (Added Dec. 12; #3)

"Modern pentathlon has joined other sports in adopting a "no needles" policy as part of its anti-doping rules ahead of the 2012 London Olympics.

Governing body UIPM says athletes can receive injections only from a "certified medical professional" after an appropriate diagnosis and only if there is no alternative.

The UIPM says all injections must be reported to competition doctors."

I look forward to tennis journalists demanding that the ITF implement a "no needles" policy. I know that they all firmly believe that tennis should lead by example on the anti-doping front.

Energizer Bunnies: 2; Juan Martin Del Potro: 0 (Updated)

2011-12-04T08:49:00.000-08:00

More Drama From Rafa

Courtesy of TenisTico, a link from Marca, where Uncle Toni confirms that Nadal received an injection into his knee. What a warrior for playing!

Also, Nadal has announced that he will not play Davis Cup in 2012, so that he can focus on the Olympics. As ITF statistics indicate that doping tests always occur at Davis Cup, not playing will result in two fewer pre-Olympics doping tests for Nadal (and any other of the Spaniards that opt out) than if he played. In 2012, Spain is scheduled to play 10–12 February againt Kazakhstan. Assuming they win that tie, they would play again 6–8 April.

Verdasco Talks About Doping Tests

December 3, 2011:Q. First, apologies for leaving the match, but we received the information that halfway through the match David and Rafa had been subject to a doping test. I am sorry, but are we becoming mad? Are we going crazy with the doping tests and this psychosis?

FERNANDO VERDASCO: They were subject to the tests during the match, and now we have just been told that we have to go to the doping test. They are waiting for us here, and we have to be taken to the doping tests.
We have talked about this a lot. We have said that we are happy with the tests and controls so that there is clean sport because nobody wants to play against a doped player, but there are different ways of doing things.
I don't think it's nice that during a game they take the colleagues out to go to a test. That's in my opinion. They could wait until the end of the match, and they could have allowed them to cheer us and then do the test afterwards, which is what we are going to do now. I think they are going a little bit over the top in the way they do things.

Juan Martin Must Be Lacking In "Fitness"

Hmmm...why are there no comments about Nadal being tired?

What planet is Rafa from?

But I thought Ferrer was "very tired"?

FOR NEW READERS...Oddly this Davis Cup tie has led to a surge in new visitors to the site:

1. The ITF's Refusal to disclose basic information
2. "No Sample Collected" out-of-competition drug tests
3. ITF does not make public cases/decisions that result in a finding of no Anti-Doping Rule Violation
4. The ITF's Response to my e-mail about the Serena Williams-Panic Room-Drug Tester Incident
5. Unexplained discrepancy between adverse test results and doping violations

David Ferrer, ITF stunts, and Tweets (Updated)

2011-12-03T07:33:00.000-08:00

Ferrer Doesn't Have An Answer

From yesterday's (Dec. 1) post-Del Potro match interview, I'm surprised a reporter asked the question:

Q. In London just six days ago, you told us that you were tired, very tired. So how do you explain that you can run around like that for nearly five hours and give a great performance like that?

DAVID FERRER: Well, I don't know exactly, you know. This season, it was very long, but, you know, the Davis Cup is very special for me and for the Spanish players. I like a lot to play Davis Cup, and I can practice these days very good.
I was comfortable with my physique, and all the week, no, we practiced good. And today maybe I play a really good game and maybe the best matches of my career.

Thanks for the insight, David. You claimed to be tired when playing best of 3 sets a week ago, yet you have no explanation for being able to defeat a player 6 years your junior a week later in a near 5-hour marathon.

Meanwhile, in his post-match interview, Rafael Nadal stated that "...I practiced three days in a row four hours. So is a lot of time on court. Morning and afternoon and another day three hours and yesterday less" and this gem: "Last week I was almost dead, and now people think that I'm not human. I don't think we can dramatize or exaggerate things either way. I wasn't there last week, and I am human this week."

But then there's this bizarre exchange:Q. The result was very clear, but yesterday you were not feeling very well. You had a little bit of a muscle problem. Can you tell us about how it went, what happened yesterday? What have you done to get treatment or what is happening now?

RAFAEL NADAL: No, I don't have any muscle problems. Now is not time to talk about this. When the tie is finished, I will talk to you. Now I'm just focused in the final.
I have a lot of work to do, and I'm not going to worry about other matters. Everything is on track. I am feeling really well today. I'm very happy with the victory. I don't think I want to talk about this other matter now, or at least I don't want to. I'm sorry.
Why is everything so mysterious? Well, Ed McGorgan is reporting that there is a "South American press report saying Nadal received an injection in his right knee before his match [with Juan Monaco]." Here we go again with PRP?

A Big Show of Nothing

All the rage on twitter is that apparently ITF doping control officers pulled Nadal, Monaco, Ferrer, and Del Potro off the bench for doping tests, during the Davis Cup doubles rubber. Whoop-dee-do! It appears that the ITF is pulling a big PR stunt in light of the Yannick Noah comments, trying to give the impression to the public that they are really tough about anti-doping.

Of course, readers of this blog know better than to take such public displays seriously. The truth about tennis's testing programme is much different.

It will be interesting to see what the press will have to say on the matter. Well, as expected, the press are eating up. Some coverage here and here. They report it like there was never testing at Davis Cup prior to this tie. What a joke.

Ferrer's Energy

David "I'm very tired" Ferrer outlasts a well rested 23-year-old.

It is impressive stuff from David "I want to stop" Ferrer, no?

Bad combo for who?

From Tennis.com: "But ultimately, del Potro could not sustain this level of play, and in fitting fashion, Ferrer prevailed after a long, arduous contest."

From the New York Times: "In the end, Del Potro ran out of steam, unable to maintain the pace in the longer rallies and peppering instead his game with some sloppy shots in the final set...Ferrer displayed once more the fighting spirit that has made him one of the toughest and most consistent players on the circuit. By the fifth set, he was returning winners off Del Potro’s normally lethal serve and forehand."

David Ferrer: In His Own Words

2011-12-02T13:13:00.000-08:00

David Ferrer (November 26, 2011):

Q. A lot of players have complained about the length of the season this week again. Can I have your point on that.

DAVID FERRER: Yes, we know that. I think all the players know the season is very long, is very tough for us. We play a lot of tournaments, Davis Cup, ATP tournaments. We finish in December. Now I will play to Davis Cup. Finally in December I have only one week to rest and I come back in January to play in the new season, no?
We know that and we want to change. We know is not easy, but we need to change the calendar.

Q. You didn't seem that tired this week.

DAVID FERRER: But I am tired. I am tired, sure. I'm very tired (smiling).
Me, I was fight. But I'm very tired. I want to stop, but I can't because I have the Davis Cup. But I'm really tired.

...

Q. With regards to Davis Cup, have your efforts this week and Rafa's efforts this week left you at a big disadvantage against Argentina?

DAVID FERRER: Well, of course, is disadvantage because we're playing more matches. We'll go more tired. We have to change now to clay court. The Argentinian guys, they are practicing two weeks ago in clay court. Of course is disadvantage.
But we know that. Is the format of the calendar, the Davis Cup. You know, we can't do anything like this.

What of Rafa?

Rafael Nadal (December 1, 2011):
Q. Regarding the antidoping tests this morning, I would like to know whether the Spanish team was also subject to the same antidoping test and what are your feelings about the situation?

RAFAEL NADAL: We have currently not been subject to the tests yet, so I suppose we will be doing the test today or tomorrow. But we are never for given. They always test us week after week, so we are always being tested for antidoping, so I think it's logical that they are making the tests.
We are going to want to have clean sports, and we are happy to be subject to controls. And thanks to the good faith of people, we have clean sports.
I think the antidoping control is something which, over the last few years, has been intensified and strengthened. I don't know if it's necessary or not, but it is what it is. I don't always share the way they do the tests, but I want a clean sport, fair play, and 100% security that my opponents are clean and they want us to be clean.
So it's what everyone wants and what all athletes want, sports without cheating, because it's the only way we want it. It's the only sport we understand.
The way they carry out the tests and the system that they are using leaves a lot to improve, should be improved.

...
Q. Rafa, I read in the newspaper that you are using that recovery chamber, a recovery chamber with air. I read it in a newspaper today. Can you tell us what this is?

RAFAEL NADAL: Well, it is not a recovery chamber. What we do is we do a treatment in a bubble, it's a bubble, and you only breathe fresh air in the bubble.
We feel comfortable in it. We have used it for a long time. We like it and its use, and it works well for us.
...

Q. Rafa, how are you feeling now? You've had a couple of days off since London. You said you were feeling tired there, but the fact that you're with your teammates, you're back on clay, has it lifted your spirits?

RAFAEL NADAL: Well, I did not have one day off, practicing every day hard. The motivation, you know, the illusion to share with all my friends here, this final is completely different, the surface is different, and emotions too, no?
For sure, even if I am tired, I try my best to arrive to the match of tomorrow with my best conditions. Tomorrow is a day I have to be very well. I have to be ready to fight every point or run every ball, and to accept that point will be a difficult one.

Heartbreaking: Where's the Outrage? (Updated Dec. 2)

2011-11-30T16:33:00.000-08:00

Given Melchekzanikhar's comment, I thought I'd say something about this post. Yes, this post is about an unpleasant topic and I understand that people are hesitant to comment (and I'm not asking for comments). However, sometimes we all need to put things into perspective. As Melchekzanikhar writes, this is worse than doping. Indeed, it is infinitely worse than doping. In his article, Michael Mewshaw writes "Over the years, I’ve tried to persuade tennis authorities and the press to take sexual abuse seriously. But as at Penn State, it’s hard to get people to pay attention and to follow up."

If that's the case, what chance is there that doping and other integrity of the game issues will be taken seriously?

Further, young athletes are open to all forms of abuse, as noted in this recent article "the relationship between coach and young athlete is one that has been shown to be open to emotional, physical and sexual abuse."

Here's a context setting piece by long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad.

Hewitt Allegations and Others

Recently, abuse allegations involving Bob Hewitt, who was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 1992, surfaced in the news. The story has been covered in detail (also, see here and here) by the Boston Globe.

Another case: In 2008, a former coach of both Bjorn Borg and Martina Navratilova, "pleaded guilty to six sexual assaults against one girl, and two indecent assaults and two sexual assaults on another."

There's also a case of abuse from 2007, involving the 2001 LTA Young Coach of the Year.

Back in 2004, a former coach of Mark Philippoussis and Monica Seles was found guilty of child sex charges.

There have been other incidents (not all these cases have finished going through or ultimately went through the court process): here and here and here.

Where's the Outrage?

Just read this.

Some background and here and here.

The author of the above article, Michael Mewshaw, also wrote "A Short History of Drugs in Tennis".

He also did an interview on gambling in tennis a couple years back.

Mewshaw is also the author of the book "Short Circuit". A review of the book is here.

He is probably the only journalist to truly investigate the underbelly of tennis.

An Early Wake-up Call

Argentina's Davis Cup team was awakened for doping tests at 6:30 a.m. Thursday. Recall that it wasn't until this week that Spain adopted the WADA time windows for out-of-competition testing. And, of course, if any players on Argentina's team are using, testing them the day before the Davis Cup final begins is pretty useless. One could speculate (seditiously) that the testing was done at this time because it virtually guarantees a clean sample (remember only "dopey dopers" get caught), and generates some publicity that makes it appear to the public that tennis has stringent controls.

Oddly, even though he wasn't tested, Rafael Nadal still managed to complain: “We all want a clean sport...But the system and the way it is used leaves much to be desired.”

Spain, Koellerer's Appeal, and More from Le Monde (Updated: Nov. 29)

2011-11-28T12:57:00.000-08:00

Another Media Response to Yannick Noah

Bruce Jenkins of Sports Illustrated writes: "Of all the reactions to Yannick Noah's reckless comments about Spanish athletes and performance-enhancing drugs, I liked Michael Llodra's the most. Lifting a hand and tilting it over his mouth, Llodra suggested his French countryman might have had too much to drink."

That's all Jenkins has to say, just another personal insult volleyed while ignoring the main issue completely. He has nothing of substance to say. Such is the state of tennis "journalism."

Not that any more evidence is needed, but it's safe to say that there are no mainstream tennis writers out there willing to speak ill of the sport, especially if it means contradicting the views of top players (e.g., Nadal and Ferrer). Instead, they try to ingratiate themselves with top players by parroting complaints about scheduling, tennis ball type, and the color of the court, but that's as far as they'll go.

Spain's "Whereabouts"

An item in today's news getting limited reporting is that Spain has adopted the WADA's Whereabouts rules for out of competition testing between 6 am and 11 pm; Spain had previously limited out of competition testing to between 8am and 11 pm.

This is interesting for two reasons.

First, in comes on the heels of Yannick Noah's comments on doping and Spain. He got trashed, but few in the media researched any facts, and when presented with facts they ignored them. Will the media apologise to Noah for their ad hominem attacks and their own baseless defense of Spain?

Second, and more importantly, it comes a week after the WADA issued its 2011 Compliance Report. Last week's report stated that Spain was in compliance. However, if they only adopted the WADA's Whereabouts rules today, how could they have been in compliance last week? I e-mailed the WADA last week, asking about Spain's compliance with the Whereabouts rule and they didn't respond.

Also, I'd note that last week's report found the British Olympic Association to be non-compliant because of its lifetime Olympic participation ban on athletes found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs.

Poor Mr. Bodo

Today was the first day of Daniel Koellerer's appeal of his lifetime ban for matching violations by the Tennis Integrity Unit. Aside from the fact that he was banned for violations, everything related to his case, including the decision itself, is confidential. As noted by the TIU: "Consistent with the confidentiality of the Anti-Corruption Hearing process, no details of the Hearing or Decision will be made public."

However, not knowing any of the details of the hearing or decision didn't stop Pete Bodo from writing, "I hope Koellerer decides not to exercise his right to appeal the ban, and I imagine many other people share that sentiment. He's a bad actor, and the game is better off without him."

Nice, but that's what we've come to expect from the tennis media (especially Bodo). I don't know whether Koellerer violated any rules or not (since everything is confidential), but he's entitled to due process, just like Gasquet and Contador. Indeed, given the secrecy of the TIU, Koellerer's appeal is very important. Hopefully, it will shed some light on the inner workings of the TIU. Ending a player's career and keeping everything confidential is further evidence of the ITF's lack of basic transparency.

Le Monde Strikes Again!

Le Monde is really on a roll. They have released an interview with Jean-Pierre de Mondenard, a sports physician, specializing in PEDs. Here's some Google Translation excerpts:

Noah is right to question the Spaniards.

...the problem is not Noah, nor the Spanish, but of course the inability of anti-doping to identify cheaters.

...The biggest problem of anti-doping is: athletes taking substances that laboratories can not find..

...No international federation can provide evidence that the competitions are clean. They pride themselves every time the small number of positive tests to conclude that there is no doping in sport. This is hypocrisy

...Football is the world champion of omerta
Le Monde is clearly putting some time, resources, and effort into exploring doping. What's next? And will anyone else step-up?

Yannick Responds: "...today there are too many cheaters" (Nov. 27: Full Translation of Interview Available in Comments)

2011-11-25T05:31:00.000-08:00

Update: Be Still My Beating Heart!

What do we have here from the Bleacher Report? Yannick Noah: Why We Should Defend His Remarks on Performance-Enhancing Drugs. As noted by Swoon in the comments, it has some issues, and the author appears to have made an error of attributing comments to the WADA, that were, in fact, made by the USADA. However, at this time, we take what we can get. And, on that front, more significant than the Bleacher article, is that Matt Cronin retweeted us for our translation of the Yannick Noah interview. Cronin has 11,000+ followers on twitter, and the site did experience a significant traffic bump after the retweet.

In other news, another tennis journalist dismissed Yannick Noah comments.

Yannick Stays the Course

Yannick Noah has responded to the media lashing he received (our earlier coverage here). Let's see if the English-language media provides some balance and reports Noah's response as quickly as they did those of Nadal, Ferrer, and others. And whether, as a result of Noah's latest salvo, we finally get a mature conversation about doping in sport. Time will tell.

A reader, Vincent (thanks, again for another world exclusive), has graciously provided his translation of the entire interview in the comments section below. Please read it at comments 16 & 17 of this post.

Here are some excerpts from Vincent's translation:

...If I chose this sentence, it was to address the authorities, not the youth. To shake them. To open the debate. Because, as an athlete, or an ex-athlete, I am a little bit frustrated about the unfairness in doping, be it with Spain, or with other countries.

...I am not denouncing individuals, but a system.

...In the Puerto case, I have the feeling things were hushed up, that names were hidden.

...To beat doping, if it is really the objective, we will need a lot more courage, be it at the federation level or on the political level. It's so much easier to attack me!

...I am against every form of doping, but I am also very sensitive to unfairness. And, today, there are too many cheaters winning.

...I think the system is pretty well established, with powerful political networks and massive economic stakes. I would be very interested to know what happens behind the scenes.

...Who are the "dumb dopers"? Those who haven't got protection? Those who don't have the means? And when is an athlete doped? When he takes something which makes him run faster, makes him stronger, helps him recuperate? Or only when he tests positive? The answer to this question is not the same in each country.
It's great to see Noah sticking to his guns. It's possible that the heads of many a tennis "journalist" will explode upon reading his latest statements. And I'm guessing this will earn him even more wrath from the mainstream. He has expanded his criticism to beyond Spain, how will the media react to that? Noah is now saying that the doping fight is broken.

If the mainstream does cover Yannick's response, I'm guessing that it will criticise him for making even more "reckless," "baseless," and "irresponsible" statements. They will say this even though, as noted on this blog (and Noah's response), the WADA is saying that they're not getting the job done.

On another note, I must say that Le Monde is doing an excellent job at managing this story for maximum impact. By first releasing notice of Noah's article on Nov. 18, they built-in some buzz for when it was finally released on Nov. 19. This resulted in the story dominating the news cycle coinciding with the beginning of the World Tour Finals. Now by having Noah respond today, Le Monde guarantees that the story will continue through the weekend, covering the semis and finals. Pretty saavy stuff. I wonder if they have anything else up their sleeve?

Well, hours after this blog posted about the story, some very minimal English coverage has started to appear on the newswire (the AP article has since been expanded and received universal distribution). We'll have to wait and see if any columnists/journalists weigh in with an opinion.

OFFERED WITHOUT COMMENT: 2005 V. 2006 V. 2007 V. 2011

2011: "Toni Nadal, Rafael’s coach and uncle, went on a Spanish radio station to suggest that Noah’s accusation "not only comes from envy, it comes from a lack of reflection.""

2005: Tony La Russa on Jose Canseco's claim that Mark McGwire used PEDs: "...I think there's a healthy case of envy and jealousy."

2011: Columnist Simon Briggs on Rafael Nadal & David Ferrer: "Their excellence is hard-won through long hours of training, on the court and in the gym."

2005: Tony La Russa: "I am absolutely certain that Mark [McGwire] earned his size and strength from hard work and a disciplined lifestyle."

Wimbledon 2006:

Q. There was coverage in a French newspaper yesterday according that your name is on a list of Dr. [Fuentes] who is suspected of doing blood doping for sportsmen.
RAFAEL NADAL: I gonna speak in Spanish and he gonna translate.
INTERPRETER: I don't want to speak about untrue statements, nonsense. I've never taken anything in my life, and I never will. I'm well enough educated in the sporting world and out of sporting world to not cheat. People who write lies about other people are bad people.
There's nothing more to say about this. It's lies and it's just people who write lies are bad people. He's a coward. He should sign what he writes at the bottom. My manager is speaking to my lawyers.

2005:

Mark McGwire: “I have always told the truth and I am saddened that I continue to face this line of questioning...With regard to this book, I am reserving comment until I have the chance to review its contents myself.”

Rafael Palmeiro: "I categorically deny any assertion made by Jose Canseco that I used steroids...At no point in my career have I ever used steroids, let alone any substance banned by Major League Baseball. As I have never had a personal relationship with Canseco, any suggestion that he taught me anything, about steroid use or otherwise, is ludicrous."

2004: Marion Jones: "I know that I've always been drug-free, I am drug-free and I want to continue to be drug-free."

2007: Marion Jones: "It’s with a great amount of shame that I stand before you and tell you that I have betrayed your trust...I have been dishonest and you have the right to be angry with me. I have let (my family) down. I have let my country down, and I have let myself down."

Wimbledon 2006:

Q. You had to start the week with this terrible insult about drugs. How hard is it being to put that away from your mind? Has that made you angry?
RAFAEL NADAL: (Through translation.) He's already spoken about that. He said everything he has to say about it, and it's not going to affect him because he knows he's completely innocent.

Q. I was just wondering how difficult that had been, to put it away from his mind.
RAFAEL NADAL: (Through translation.) It hasn't been difficult because he's never taken anything in his life, and he never will.

OFFERED WITHOUT COMMENT: GETTING READY FOR 2012

Novak Djokovic: "I think I have more than enough time to get my old strength back and prepare well...So I'm sure that if I have as good a preparation as I had last year, I'm confident I can do well in Australia."

After being eliminated from the World Tour Finals, Rafael Nadal had this to say: "I’m lacking things that I had always had, such as explosiveness..."

Jose Canseco (2005): "A lot of it is psychological...I mean, you really believe you have an edge. You feel the strength, and the stamina."

Novak Djokovic: "...mentally I feel a little bit drained."

MEDIA SILLINESS

Just found an odd piece from yesterday's edition of Tennis.com's Daily Spin. I tweeted him some of the links he references, but he still manages to comes to the conclusion that Noah has "no evidence" and proclaims that "Yannick Noah has laid claim—and at the eleventh hour, no less—to the Daily Spin's first annual Turkey of the Year award." Strange to say it, but even with the absurd conclusion, this may be the most balanced piece in the mainstream so far.

FOR NEW READERS

Since site traffic has been picking up since the Yannick story broke, here are some important previous posts on tennis's anti-doping programme:

1. The ITF's Refusal to disclose basic information
2. "No Sample Collected" out-of-competition drug tests
3. ITF does not make public cases/decisions that result in a finding of no Anti-Doping Rule Violation
4. The ITF's Response to my e-mail about the Serena Williams-Panic Room-Drug Tester Incident
5. Unexplained discrepancy between adverse test results and doping violations

News From Serbia

2011-11-24T17:36:00.000-08:00

I mentioned the story regarding the Serbian Tennis Federation in the previous post, but since finding a more substantial article, a new post was required.

Here are the key excerpts:

Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic was elected Serbia's Tennis Association (TSS) president today in what he described as a bid to boost the country's image and create a conveyor belt of talent.

Jeremic, who broke into the tennis spotlight in April when he granted diplomatic passports to Serbia's top players...

"Our goal is to create a system in which Serbia's current success will not be just a flash in the pan we will reminisce about in a few decades, but rather a well-oiled mechanism which will keep producing top-level players," Jeremic said...

...Jeremic immediately named [Novak] Djokovic's uncle Goran, the Serbia Open chairman, as one of the TSS vice presidents
What type of language is this? "Well-oiled mechanism"? What exactly does that entail?

I'm sure that everything is above board and that no cronyism or political machinations were at work here...cough.......cough...

SCIOs and gluten-free diets for all! And CVAC "egg chambers", too!

Gotta love that SCIO/EPFX...right!? It works!?!

The Yannick Noah Saga Continued (Updated Nov. 24)

2011-11-22T16:10:00.000-08:00

Interesting tweet from Tsonga's account (apparently run by a PR firm) following his win over Nadal: "Tout çà pour montrer que les Espagnols sont pas dopés , merci Rafa t'es un vrai champion ;-)"

It was deleted quickly, but not before many had re-tweeted it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original Yannick Noah post was getting very long, and a little messy. So, I have broken it into three chunks. Part 1: Yannick's original statement is here. Part 2: Nadal's response along with a compilation of doping stories about Spain is here. This is Part 3, which is monitoring any noteworthy media coverage. For new readers of the blog, please see the end of this post for some background material.

1. Story from Le Figaro:

Yannick Noah spoke spoke his mind...his questions on the brazen success of Spanish athletes summed up the skepticism of a fair number of observers.

Dr. Jean-Pierre de Mondenard, a specialist in performance-enhancing drugs, confirmed this.

“We can’t actually say he’s wrong on this point, because we have similar suspicions about Spanish athletes,” Mondenard said. “Today, anti-doping tests are incapable of proving who is cheating and who isn’t. Most tests happen during the competitions and thus predictable for the athletes. Tests administered unexpectedly, during training, are better indicators. Finally, history tells us that each time a country dominates a sport, there is doping behind it.”
2. New story featuring Christophe Rochus: "Yannick Noah only tells the truth"

3. Story in Le Monde: "Yannick Noah is right to break the omerta". Some Google Translation:

...as noted by the former winner of Roland Garros, all athletes are not subject to the same and all countries are not fighting with the same zeal against doping.

...A few days ago, the 2006 Tour winner, Oscar Pereiro , regretted on Spanish television that "nobody in this country has the balls to tell the truth about "Operation Puerto"." The violence of the reactions caused by chronic Yannick Noah proves that the omerta reigns on both sides of the Pyrenees.
4. Here's some "mainstream" coverage of Yannick's comments. All of it negative, all of it attacking Noah for a lack of "evidence" and/or "proof." None of them appear to have done any background research on Spain. There's this from TennisTalk. This quaint piece called "Yannick Noah Is an Idiot." And, of course, there's the always classy Mr. Bodo.

5. Isn't this nice? Emilio Sanchez Vicario wrote an Open Letter to Yannick Noah.

6. This may be the best piece so far (which means the English Press probably won't pick it up): Google translation "...the fight against doping is broken." I should add that the experts interviewed in this article appear to be advocating for legalization, which I'm not sure I agree with. But the honesty and acknowledgement that things are broken is refreshing.

7. Why did this take so long? Why now? Seven people linked to cycling’s Operation Puerto doping scandal will stand trial in Spain: Eufemiano Fuentes and six others arrested in 2006.

8. Another: "The French Tennis Federation wishes to express its disagreement with regards to the comments made by Yannick Noah." Odd how the only stories getting circulated by the English-language press are negative, no? What about the others?

9. Steve Tignor chimes in (sort of) and in the process reveals a lack of knowledge of how the ITF's anti-doping programme works (i.e., only guilty decisions are made public).

10. Check out this tweet: "will yannick noah apologise for his irresponsible comments about spanish athletes and which has rightly enfuriated rafa nadal?"

11. Ha! The always classy Pete Bodo strikes again.

12. Yannick Noah "Out of Touch."

13. Two doping cases (France and Italy) come to a conclusion.

14. What's this? WADA releases a more user-friendly and efficient Whereabouts interface for athletes.

15. Le Monde defends Yannick Noah on Spanish Radio. Google Translation of article about interview by Le Monde's Stephane Mandard defending Noah. As with the other pieces defending Yannick Noah, do not expect this to be picked-up by the English-language press.

16. A rather bizarre story from Serbia. The government's current foreign minister was just elected as presiednt of Serbia's tennis federation and Novak Djokovic's uncle became vice president. Apparently, the previous president resigned because of disagreement involving Djokovic's family. Very odd, indeed.

FOR NEW READERS

Since site traffic has been picking up since the Yannick story broke, here are some important previous posts on tennis's anti-doping programme:

1. The ITF's Refusal to disclose basic information
2. "No Sample Collected" out-of-competition drug tests
3. ITF does not make public cases/decisions that result in a finding of no Anti-Doping Rule Violation
4. The ITF's Response to my e-mail about the Serena Williams-Panic Room-Drug Tester Incident
5. Unexplained discrepancy between adverse test results and doping violations

Rafa Responds to Yannick Noah/Putting Spain in Context

2011-11-22T16:08:00.000-08:00

Nadal dialed up some phony outrage in response to Yannick Noah's article in his post-Mardy Fish press conference:
Q. Do you have any comment on the remarks that Yannick Noah made a day or two ago?

RAFAEL NADAL: What's can I say? That's going to be difficult to explain what I feel in English. This guy deserve not write anymore in the newspaper, you know. What he said is completely stupid and he knows better than nobody. Say that today is a totally stupid thing because you know how many anti‑doping controls we are having during all the season year by year. So, in my opinion, his article, what he writed, was from a kid. And when one kid say something, is not painful for us. So that's what I feel.
I don't know how to say in English, but especially I think that's worst for French, for France. Is worst for his country than for our country, in my opinion, because the image of the country when one guy, important guy like him, say that, is terrible.
What nonsense. Nadal expects us to believe that he is ignorant of his own country's history? Give me a break. Also, the response seems to lack the usual "humble" demeanor of Nadal.

Oh, here's more silliness from Uncle Toni:
Toni Nadal, Rafael’s coach and uncle, went on a Spanish radio station to suggest that Noah’s accusation “not only comes from envy, it comes from a lack of reflection.

"If he approaches Rafa to say hello, I hope my nephew tells him, in a courteous manner, what he thinks of him.”
Wow. Pretty personal attack. For a reality check, keep reading because no one in the media has yet addressed any of the criticism by international bodies towards Spain's doping regime.

Recall that Noah is not the first person to criticize Spain on the doping front. A few months ago, the chief executive of the USADA also called-out Spain for weak doping-control.

The IOC has also expressed concerns with Spain's whereabouts testing rules.

Or what about this story?

And don't forget that the UCI criticised Spain for political interference in the Contador case. The UCI was also critical of the number of doping cases coming out of Spain; the head of UCI stated "There is a problem in Spain because...a large percentage of our doping cases come from Spain...There doesn't seem to be, so far, the will to tackle that in Spain and that really needs to come from the government down."

How could we forget the frustration expressed by the WADA towards Spain's handling of the Operación Puerto scandal? Additionally, the WADA made an appeal to prevent the evidence (i.e., blood bags) seized in Operación Puerto from being destroyed at the end of the Spanish investigation. It's uncertain whether they were successful.

And then there's Operación Galgo, which also appears to have resulted in very little.

Plus, there was another bust by police in Catalonia earlier this year, where one of substances seized was clenbuterol.

Further, it was announced in 2010 that Spain's anti-doping agency would have its budget cut as part of wider national austerity measures.

In addition, just a few days ago 2006 Tour de France champion Oscar Pereiro let loose on a Spanish talk show.

And did you ever hear the story of the Spanish swimmer who, because of "vulnerable psychological condition", was able avoid a ban for missing out-of-competition doping tests?

So, Noah's comments are not an isolated incident and his article must be viewed within a wider context of Spain's track record.

But, I guess these critics are all a bunch of bitter, conspiracy theorists, no? Or perhaps they are haters, who are ugly on the inside.

Yannick Noah Levels Doping Accusations at Spain

2011-11-18T13:23:00.000-08:00

In the same week that the Chairman of the British Olympic Association, Lord Colin Moynihan, called the WADA Code "toothless." And the WADA's David Howman stated that "We are catching the dopey dopers, but not the sophisticated ones," and that "It is pathetic. We must increase quality and efficiency if we want to continue the fight." We now have Yannick Noah talking about doping in sports.

Courtesy of Vincent (a French-speaking reader of this blog), a full translation of Yannick Noah's article from Le Monde:
"When I still milled around on the courts with my racket, we weren't ridiculous, far from it, against our spanish friends. Same on the soccer fields, the basket halls or on the roads of the Tour de France. Today they are running faster than us, are much more stronger and only leave us the bread crumbs. Compared to us, it's simple, we look like dwarves. Did we miss something?

One question keeps coming back to me : how can a nation dominate virtually overnight the sport in such a way ? Did they discover some avant-garde techniques or training facilities that nobody before them had imagined? I have searched and didn't find any documented evidence of such innovations, even if I can understand one doesn't want to be imitated when having stumbled onto such a secret. But, between us, it's hard for me to believe in such a hypothesis. Today, sports are a bit like Astérix at the olympic games : if you don't have the magic potion, it's hard to win. And here it looks like, just like Obélix, they fell right down in the potion pot. Lucky guys.

However, in the last years they may have abused a bit of it, considering the avalanche of positive tests. No sooner than last week did I read that a player of the European champion basket team, in september, had a problem with an "anormal" testosterone value. The Spanish federation quickly declared that it was a "normal" anormal rate. Lucky guys. Had it happened in France, I'm convinced the matter would have turned out very differently. Let's take the case of Jeannie Longo. During twenty years, she was an idol. But as soon as there was a small incident regarding doping, she was assassinated. It's typical French schizophrenia.

We want champions, we admire foreign champions, et we have no mercy as soon as one gets caught. Remember Virenque "à l'insu de son plein gré". We sacrificated him, we had our victim, the others are still there. Lucky guys.

But do you know what they talk about at the sports bar (I know that well, I'm often around there)? Those who win are those who can slip out of the net, those who are quicker than the controllers and use the non-detectable drugs. Of course, it's very honorable for us to have put in place the "suivi longitudinal", a strict system to follow our athletes. But they are not treated the same as the majority of theirs opponents in the other countries.

In Spain, the Fuentes case, the biggest scandal in the history of the sport, did "pschitt" (nothing, a private French joke). The majority of the Spanish customers of the good doctors were let go. Maybe because, over there, sport is so important its heroes are more protected. But why are we rolling out then the red carpet for Contador at the Tour de France, after he tested positive (oh right, that was the meat....) ? let's stop with hypocrisy. Of course you have to apply "innocent until proven guilty", but nobody is fooled. The best attitude would be to accept doping. Let everyone have his magic potion."
Thanks, Vincent. So, what are the odds that Nadal or Ferrer get any questions about Noah's comments at the World Tour Finals?
___________________________________________________________________

It's of no surprise that Noah is getting slammed in the media and by Spanish athletes for his comments. For example, Neil Harman, who covers tennis for The Times in the UK, tweeted "It is a remarkable thing to say without a smidgin of proof. He has plunged in my estimation." Of course, through his statement, Mr. Harman is only displaying his lack of knowledge regarding the criticisms by the USADA, UCI, and WADA on Spain's committment to clean sport (noted above). Comments by Spanish athletes are no different.

The attacks on Noah further illustrate how many in the media keep themselves blissfully uninformed of what's going on. It appears that few are (or want to be) aware of the larger context in which Noah's comments exist. Criticism of Spain has been brewing for years.

Travis Tygart, the chief executive of the US Anti-Doping Agency:

'There does currently exist a divide between a number of nations that are running the most effective programmes. You look at the UK, France, Norway and, hopefully, the US. They are in stark contrast to the quality of the [anti-doping] programmes in Spain, Jamaica, Russia. That's troubling particularly because our athletes will be on the world stage competing against those athletes.

'Frankly, athletes from those countries [Jamaica, Spain and Russia] deserve to be able to say: "Hey, we're clean. And not only are we clean but we're held to the highest standard". I feel bad for athletes from those countries, because they don't have the ability to say that.'
Addendum: For those new to the blog, some quotes from players about doping here and here

"...the game is being spoiled by big money."

2011-11-18T11:57:00.000-08:00

This story is too good to pass-up. It's about the doping scandal swallowing the kabaddi World Cup.

What's kabaddi? It's a very old South Asian team sport that appears to be a mixture of tag and wrestling.

Anyways, this is what's going on at the kabaddi World Cup:
Six members of Canada’s team have tested positive for banned substances, part of an astounding haul of 37 athletes nabbed for using performance-enhancing drugs.

...The Australian national team was disqualified after five players tested positive and at least two refused to be tested. The U.S. team is also out of the competition after five players tested positive and others refused to give a urine sample. One player whose nationality was not made public was caught swapping his urine for water. At the Indian team’s selection trials, 21 of 51 participants flunked a drug test.

...a senior official with the Indian National Anti-Doping Agency, said there have been 37 positive tests so far during the competition, which is a rate of nearly one in five athletes (by comparison, 30 athletes tested positive in the run-up to the much larger Vancouver 2010 Olympics).

“In kabaddi, I’m told [steroid use] is problematic because the game is being spoiled by big money,” Mr. Jayaraman said.
I don't know what constitutes "big money" in the world of kabaddi, but I'm certain it is nothing close to the rewards of professional tennis. And yet, here we are at the tail end of the 2011 tennis season and we have had a grand total of two (2) anti-doping violations, one by a journeymen player and the other unranked. Who finds this credible?

News Round-up

2011-11-16T09:45:00.000-08:00

I didn't want to do another post this week, but there's been a few interesting news stories in the past few days that deserve a mention.

1. Mike Dickson at the Daily Mail actually did some original coverage of the Serena Williams-Panic Room incident. Not as hard hitting or critical as what I have already written, but it's the best by far to date: It has not been possible to find out what occurred thereafter. The game’s authorities always refuse to comment on individual cases, and Williams’s representatives have not responded to media inquiries, including my own...

There is no suggestion she has done anything wrong...

...It is a complex and fraught area, and one thing that struck me was how difficult it must be for the anti-doping authorities to secure convictions if the miscreant is organised and determined.

Tennis requires an incredibly high level of technical skill at the top level that no steroid could impart, but what can be safely said is that in an era when stamina and strength have never been at more of a premium, the sport has never needed to be so vigilant in this whole area.
Could be better, but not bad, and we've certainly seen a lot worse. At the very least, Dickson deserves some credit for his recognition that (1) it's difficult to catch dopers; and (2) that there is a big incentive to use PEDs in tennis. These two statements by themselves are much further than most tennis "journalists" would ever say. Most would say tennis is clean, the anti-doping is working, and that PEDs can't help.

2. The Chairman of the British Olympic Association, Lord Colin Moynihan, has called the WADA Code "toothless." He was expressing his disappointment with the Court of Arbitration for Sport's decision to overturn the "International Olympic Committee's policy of banning athletes given a doping suspension of more than six months from competing in the next Games."

Moynihan lays a big slam on the WADA: "...the system put in place by Wada has failed to catch the major drug cheats of our time. The likes of Marion Jones, many cyclists and the Balco operation are only a few of those who have been tracked down and prosecuted, not by Wada but by the law enforcement officers." (Thanks, michlob)

Having pointed out problems with the WADA's Code previously, I agree that there are serious issues that need to be dealt with. Recall that it was Australian Customs that caught Wayne Odesnik, not the ITF.

3. The WADA's David Howman made some startingly honest comments about the state of fighting doping. Mr. Howman stated that "We are catching the dopey dopers, but not the sophisticated ones." Further he said, "It is pathetic. We must increase quality and efficiency if we want to continue the fight."

Dead on. And I think we can name one sport that is currently waging a pathetic fight against doping. Of course, the questions are (1) What will Howman do about it? and (2) Can he do anything about it?

4. On the lighter side, Jon Wertheim writes that the "worst issues" facing tennis are "grunting, an excessively long schedule and scattered TV coverage." Yeah, those are the top issues. Someone should tell David Howman.

5. Venus Williams is eating more vegetables.

6. Rafael Nadal doesn't like blue clay.

7. Andy Murray injured his buttock while sleeping.

Tennis Is Broken/Panic Room Wrap-up (Updated: WTA Response)

2011-11-14T05:27:00.000-08:00

UPDATE:

When I received the ITF's response on the Panic Room I decided to follow-up with the WTA again. (They didn't respond to my first e-mail.) I forwarded them the ITF's response and asked for the WTA's view both on the incident and the ITF's statement. Their response:

WTA: "As I see below, the ITF has already responded on behalf of the Tennis Anti-Doping program."

Helpful, no?
______________________________________________________________________
With no tennis this week, and the season almost over, I thought I'd wrap-up the Panic Room story and give an early post-mortem of the 2011 tennis season. (I'll do a more complete write-up after Davis Cup.)

This year, the media indifference to the obvious transparency problems at the ITF towards performance enhancing drug use and drug testing as well as bizarre behavior by tennis players continued. The Serena Williams-Panic Room-Drug Tester incident perfectly illustrates this situation.

No tennis writer on any of the major sites or newspapers has done anything beyond simply restating the original TMZ story. They offer no commentary. They have attempted no follow-up with Williams, her agent, the ITF, USTA, USADA, or WTA. (If any have done this, they are not writing about it.)

However, I did follow-up with tennis associations and doping organizations and received the following responses:

The USADA: "While I am aware of the reports regarding the situation on October 26th, this was not a testing attempt by USADA. It may have been another organization."

The USTA: "We are aware of the reports. The ITF oversees the anti-doping, though, and not the USTA."

The ITF: "The ITF, with the responsibility for managing the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme on behalf of the Grand Slams, ATP and WTA and ITF, has a duty of confidentiality and will not comment on any case unless and until there is a decision that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed, in which case the decision is published in accordance with the requirements of the WADA Code. Please take this as clarification of our position for the future."

The ITF's response is a cryptic and wordy statement that, unlike the USTA and USADA responses, makes no reference to being aware of the story. Indeed, it completely evades any reference to the story, Serena Williams, and any out-of-competition test. If no test had been attempted, the ITF would have responded in the same direct and unambiguous way as the USADA and said: No testing attempted by the ITF. Such a response would have killed this story in its tracks.

Instead, the ITF response is about not making any comment on "any case unless and until there is a decision that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed." I made no mention of any of those topics in my questions. I asked whether (1) a test was attempted; (2) was a sample collected; and (3) if no sample collected, the reason. Therefore, as the ITF answered none of my questions, the only reasonable interpretation of the ITF's response is (1) an out of competition test was attempted on October 26 and (2) Serena Williams refused to provide a sample to the tester. The ITF response also makes clear that players can still pull an Agassi when it comes to doping violations since they have stated, again, that nothing will be made public, if no doping violation is found.

Did anyone care? Not really. To his credit, Greg Couch retweeted my post, but that was it. I failed to get any traction for the story. I even posted a screen capture of the ITF's response on twitter, and sent it to many in the tennis media in the United States, Canada, UK, and other countries. The response: some interest from a couple of bloggers and zero interest from the mainstream.

The result is that I now fully understand the frustration of the founder of this blog. The 49 "no sample" out of competition mission document from 2009 that the ITF pulled from its website seemed to be a smoking gun, but that got minimal coverage. The sharp reduction in testing statistic detail for 2010 also appeared to be a clear case for investigation, but again, almost zero attention from the press. Those that did inquire were brushed off by the ITF.

Recently, I've discussed that Djokovic's gluten allergy detecting SCIO device is dubious at best, invented by a man who fled the United States and was indicted for felony fraud. Would you trust such a diagnosis? You would think that the media and tennis would ask that the top ranked player in the world to distance himself from it. They didn't. Of course, no one was much interested in what was behind his newly found endurance (wait, it was the gluten!) this year. A year which appears to have come crashing to an end with back and shoulder injuries. But I guess we'll see how well he's recovered for the Tour Finals.

Further, let's not forget that two players have been banned for life this year for "match-fixing violations;" however, "no details of the Hearing or Decision will be made public." Also of note is that only two fringe players have been found to have committed doping violations this year.

Now we have Serena's panic room escapades (which itself is layered on top of her mysterious foot injury from last year and this year's health scare involving a pulmonary embolism). More importantly as far as the panic room episode goes is the ITF's response. A response that does not deny that a test was attempted on October 26th. Again, silence.

Do we need anymore evidence that the institutional framework of tennis is broken? The number of ridiculous events this year is remarkable. It's a circus. Yet no one says anything. The ITF becomes more secretive. The media gives them a pass. Players engage in bizarre behavior. The media gives them a pass. Surely, this can only end badly for the sport.

I do have sympathy for the media. To take on the ITF publicly and alone, would effectively end your career. No player access; no access to ITF officials; press credentials probably denied; no invitations to parties/junkets/events/etc. The costs are great, the rewards uncertain. There's little upside. However, those in the tennis media know other journalists that are tennis outsiders who could do investigative work. Why aren't they talking to them and pointing them in the right direction?

That's all for now. Let me end this post by encouraging any insiders that have had enough to pass along any tips and information they have.

ITF Responds (With Commentary)

2011-11-09T07:47:00.000-08:00

UPDATE #3

Given the use of the word "case" by the ITF in their response to my question about Serena's test, I asked a clarifying follow-up:
I have one last clarification question: The ITF will not comment on this case (or any case) if there is a decision that an anti-doping violation has not been committed, in which case all materials related to the investigation of this case (or any case) will remain confidential? Is that correct?
The full response:
For an understanding of what kinds of materials are released, I would suggest you consult our website, itftennis.com/antidoping.
Interesting, no? The response makes no references to a "case" (unlike in the previous response), nor does it make any comment on whether my statement is correct or not. I take this non-response as further confirmation for my belief that Serena Williams refused to give a sample for an out-of-competition test on October 26th.
____________________________________________________________________
UPDATE #2

My take on the ITF's response is that (1) there was an attempted out-of-competition test on October 26, 2011; and (2) no sample was collected because of a refusal. Is there any other reasonable interpretation?

I note that (1) unlike the USTA and USADA, the ITF did not say that they conducted no test; and, more importantly, (2) I asked the ITF whether Serena had been tested; I made no reference to an anti-doping violation in any of my questions. However, their response stated that they "will not comment on any case unless and until there is a decision that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed..." Why the use of the words "case" and "decision" and "anti-doping rule violation"? If there was no test, or there was a test and a sample was collected, why not say so and end this story? In my view, their cryptic response and choice of words is evidence that there was a refusal to provide a sample (or perhaps something else, but it's not obvious what that could be), which obligated the ITF to open a case.

So, what will happen (or has already happened) from here? This is my (seditious) speculation or "conspiracy theory":

(1)The ITF has asked (or will ask) Serena to provide an explanation for what happened on October 26, 2011;

(2)She has provided (or will provide) a statement making the case that she had "compelling justification" for refusing to give a sample by arguing, for example, that the "notification process was not carried out properly;"

(3)The explanation will be accepted and the case will end there. End of story. No further public statement will be made beyond the e-mail sent to me.

Of course, I always welcome alternative opinions/theories to my own. I know that some will not share my view. Please, if you have another view (or evidence about this case that I have not considered) don't hesitate to present it, especially if you have some insider info.
_________________________________________________________________________
~~Offered without comment.~~ I asked the ITF the same questions regarding the Serena Williams-Panic Room story that I asked the USTA and USADA. Here is the response:

The ITF, with the responsibility for managing the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme on behalf of the Grand Slams, ATP and WTA and ITF, has a duty of confidentiality and will not comment on any case unless and until there is a decision that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed, in which case the decision is published in accordance with the requirements of the WADA Code. Please take this as clarification of our position for the future.

This is what I sent the ITF:

I wish to inform you that the United States Tennis Association's Director of Communications, Tim Curry (see e-mail below), referred me to contact the ITF's Stuart Miller regarding media reports of an October 26th out-of-competition drug test incident involving Serena Williams and the police. I e-mailed Dr. Miller several days ago and he has not responded, nor has he (or the ITF's anti-doping unit) responded to several previous e-mails about other aspects of the ITF's anti-doping programme. I am left with the conclusion that, for whatever reason a few months ago, Dr. Miller and the ITF's anti-doping unit have ceased responding to my queries all together. I understand that this treatment is not limited to myself, but to others members of the public as well. Therefore, I am requesting a prompt response from the ITF's communication branch, regarding the reported Serena Williams incident.

Specifically, can the ITF please comment regarding whether or not:
(1) Serena Williams had an out of competition mission on the morning of October 26, 2011; and
(2) If she did have a mission, whether a sample(s) was collected; and
(3) If no sample was collected, the reason for that action.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update

In other news, the ITF has just announced its second anti-doping violation of 2011. Spain's Jaime Carmona tested positive for terbutaline, a beta-2 agonist. The ITF gave him a reprimand and no period of ineligibility. Mr. Carmona is unranked. Go figure.

USTA and USADA Respond (Updated)

2011-11-08T16:05:00.000-08:00

UPDATE (USADA):

Just heard back from the USADA. I asked them the same questions as the USTA. Here is the response from Annie Skinner, Media Relations Manager:

While I am aware of the reports regarding the situation on October 26th, this was not a testing attempt by USADA. It may have been another organization.

USADA Doping Control Officers (DCOs) are USADA employees who have undergone extensive background checks, have received thorough training and have a valid photo credential to present when attempting to collect a sample. USADA’s sample collection process is consistent with the WADA International Standard for Testing and is designed to be as safe and comfortable as possible for athletes. USADA believes an athlete’s safety and security are of paramount importance in the doping control process.
Hmmmm...we're running out of potential testing organizations, aren't we?
_________________________________________________________________________
USTA Response

Well, we can cross one tennis association off the list. Today, I e-mailed the USTA for comment on the Serena Williams-Panic Room-Drug Tester story:

Last week (Nov. 2), it was reported by some media outlets that a doping control officer arrived at Serena Williams's residence to adminster an out-of-competition test on October 26th, 2011. However, it was also reported that due to an apparent case of mistaken identity that police were called and that it was unknown if a sample(s) was collected. Is the USTA aware of these reports?

Specifically, can the USTA the please comment regarding whether or not:

(1) Serena Williams had an out of competition mission on the morning of October 26, 2011; and

(2) If she did have a mission, whether a sample(s) was collected; and

(3) If no sample was collected, the reason for that action.

I received this response a few hours later from the USTA's Director, Corporate Communications, Tim Curry:

We are aware of the reports. The ITF oversees the anti-doping, though, and not the USTA.

I suggest you contact Stuart Miller at the ITF.

Neither a confirmation nor a denial. Instead, I'm being told to contact the ITF. Interestingly, I'm told to contact Stuart Miller specifically. Of course, I had already e-mailed the Miller about this matter and have yet to hear back.

To be continued...

Sound Familiar? (Updated)

2011-11-06T11:17:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: More from George Laraque:

The 13-year pro also said the NHL’s random testing program isn’t as random as it’s supposed to be.

“It was almost a running joke at one time,” said Laraque. “The testing is backward compared to other sports. We knew when the drug testing was going to be. You’re not supposed to know. It’s supposed to be confidential, but we always know when it is. It’s not a really tough thing to counter.

“Aren’t you supposed to not know when it’s confidential? Just with that, I would say, ‘Do you want to show the sports world hockey is clean? Why can’t you go to people’s homes? Why not spend a bit of money? Why don’t we take blood? Why don’t we do it the right way?’

_________________________________________________________________________
A bombshell hit the hockey world today with a new book from former-NHL enforcer George Laraque that includes a discussion about performance enhancing drug use in the sport.

Some quotes:
"It was true that quite a lot of them did use this drug, but other, more talented players did too. Most of us knew who they were, but not a single player, not even me, would ever think of raising his hand to break the silence and accuse a fellow player."
"First, you just have to notice how some talented players will experience an efficiency loss as well as a weight loss every four years, those years being the ones the Winter Olympics are held...In the following season they make a strong comeback; they manage a mysterious return to form."

"They wanted to keep drug testing as a card in their negotiations with the league," he wrote. "Plus, since their main goal was to protect the players, to take action against drugs would have harmed some of those players."

Tennis, anyone?

Another excerpt:

"As for the tough guys, a statistics maniac can easily identify who’s taking drugs and who’s not. You just have to compare their last junior league’s weight to the one they had arriving with the pros. Nobody, and I really mean nobody, can gain forty to seventy pounds in just one summer without taking anything suspicious. When you’re in close contact with them, it’s even easier to tell: the change in their voice, the swelling neck, the appearance of acne — they’re not fooling anyone."

Frequently Asked Questions: Whereabouts and Out-of-Competition (Updated)

2011-11-05T11:41:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Some more relevant information regarding anti-doping rules and refusing to sample collection from the ITF Anti-Doping Programme:

A refusal can lead to a two year suspension.

Hiding is an anti-doping rule violation.

________________________________________________________________________
From what I've seen on twitter and some tennis forum pages, there remains much ignorance regarding the "Whereabouts" program and out-of-competition testing. Here are some FAQs from the ITF website.

What happened with Serena Williams on October 26th?

The last FAQ is relevant to the TMZ Serena Williams-"panic room" story because, as noted in the previous post, the story stated that it was not know if Williams ultimately gave a sample. So, if the story is true, an anti-doping violation may have occurred. Of course, no one in the media has made this observation. Indeed, no one appears to have done any follow-up at all.

Neither Williams or any spokeperson for her has issued a denial of the story.

We know for a fact that early morning doping tests have been occuring for years. In fact, as document on this site, several have occurred since the US Open. Not one of the players that have tweeted about these tests fled to a panic room, called 911, or indicated that they thought the tester was a "prowler" or "intruder."

What else do we know? No player has publicly tweeted Serena asking about the event. No player appears to have commented or been asked about the event either.

Many fans have tweeted Serena about the "panic room", but they have gotten no response.

How will this end? Who knows? Many won't care. But I'd like to point to a rule change made for the ITF's 2011 Anti-Doping programme (see C.3):

Change to C.3 regarding refusal to provide a sample.

Nice loophole, eh?

Did She Ultimately Submit To The Test? (Updated #5)

2011-11-02T05:18:00.000-07:00

UPDATE #5

Question: If a professional cyclist did what Serena Williams has reportedly done, how would the media have covered the story?
____________________________________________________________________
UPDATE #4

So...this is it? This is the extent of coverage by the tennis crowd?

From Tennis.com:

How do you know they are tested frequently? The ITF won't say who was tested and who missed tests!

Steve Tignor:

Anybody else see anything of meaning? I haven't been able to find any coverage of substance. Given that there's the possibility of a rule violation here if a refusal occurred, you'd think that somone would want to get the details and figure out what happened...wait...I forgot that we're talking about tennis here...sorry.
__________________________________________________________________________
UPDATE #3

Just thought I'd add that not knowing whether Serena provided a sample is a major missing detail. Refusing to provide a sample is an anti-doping violation, although, I suppose, that IF she refused that she could use the "intruder/prowler" angle to provide "compelling justification" for not providing a sample. A swimmer recently managed to evade suspension for refusing an OOC test.

___________________________________________________________________________
UPDATE #2

Interesting: Many fanboys and fangirls have tweeted much support to their hero; however, no players have publicly tweeted anything about the Panic Room incident. They sometimes commiserate each other on early morning doping tests. However, other people have said things:

_______________________________________________________________________
UPDATE: What kind of reckless speculation is this?
______________________________________________________________________
Bizarre (thanks, matthias) from TMZ:

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ, Serena's assistant called 911 around 6AM last Wednesday, reporting a possible burglar or prowler. It was so serious, we're told Serena retreated to her panic room for safe keeping in case things got dangerous...

Police rushed to the scene after the 911 call, but quickly figured out the mistake. It's unclear if Serena eventually submitted to a pee test. Attempts to reach her reps were unsuccessful.

Again, the timing means that Serena picked 6AM-7AM for her 60-minute Whereabouts time slot. You reap what you sow.

Also, this can't be the first time that an out-of-competition tester has shown up at Serena's house, can it?

I'd note further that Serena's reaction is unique among all the other tennis players that have had early morning OOC doping tests. See here and here.

Djokovic, Dr. Igor, and William Nelson (Updated #3)

2011-10-30T07:34:00.000-07:00

UPDATE #3:

Found something else. It appears to be SCIO promotional material built around Djokovic's success this year.

This situation raises a number of questions:

1. Is Djokovic aware that he is being used to promote the SCIO device? I tweeted him the document and the youtube video. He hasn't responded.

2. Is the ITF aware of this stuff? I tweeted them, too. No response.

3. Is the ATP aware of this stuff? Tweeted them, too. No response.

4. Why is the media not reporting anything? The media has a public interest obligation to tell the whole story because it is possible that some people may have, or are thinking of, buying a SCIO device (or getting some treatment with one) because of the association of Djokovic.

5. Is the SCIO the only method used to diagnose Djokovic's gluten "allergy"?

6. What's up with Djokovic and devices? He's at two now: CVAC and SCIO.
________________________________________________________________________
UPDATE #2:

According to media reports, "Cetojevic said he used a SCIO bio-feedback machine - basically attaching some wires to a person and connecting them to a computer - to study the effects that food has on Djokovic's body. He saw that the gluten was "through the roof," and knew he needed to do something about it."

So, the SCIO machine is claimed to be how Djokovic's gluten allergy was discovered. A Canadian investigative journalism show did a feature on the EPFX/SCIO machine and went to Budapest to interview William Nelson. The interactions with Nelson are interesting, to say the least.

You would think the media would want to set the record straight on all of this, since they gave Dr. Cetojevic and the SCIO device a lot of free press this year. And, as for Djokovic's "gluten" problems, you'd think he'd want to get a second opinion, no?
_________________________________________________________________________
UPDATE: Offered without comment. It's a promotional video for the "SCIO" device.

_______________________________________________________________________
Earlier this year, there was much ado about Novak Djokovic's remarkable physical improvement, starting with his victory at the Australian Open. The New York Times ran a piece about Djokovic that made numerous references to his team, including a Dr. Igor Cetojevic. Dr. Cetojevic is credited with uncovering Djokovic's apparent "gluten allergy" and helping out with the mental part of Novak's game.

The article notes that Djokovic indicated "that Cetojevic has played a significant and wide-ranging role in recent months." Djokovic is quoted as referring to Cetojevic as "a great psychologist" and a "great doctor."

The article also delves a little into Cetojevic's profile:

Cetojevic’s Web site says that he holds a diploma from the Indian Institute of Magnetotherapy in New Delhi and that he specializes in working with advanced biofeedback systems, including S.C.I.O., or Scientific Conscious Interface Operator, a device that measures 16 “standard electrical parameters of the body” in an attempt to detect and treat areas of stress or imbalance and can be used to help combat allergies.

Unfortunately, the article delves no further and offers no comment on the "SCIO" device. I find this odd, because on the face of it, the SCIO device described sounds, to put it politely, a little too good to be true. And the fact is, a little Googling should have resulted in a totally different story being written.

Let's take a look at Dr. Igor's webpage:

Who's William Nelson? That's a whole story in itself. Here's some excerpts from a 2007 article from the Seattle Times titled "How one man's invention is part of a growing worldwide scam that snares the desperately ill":

There are plenty of other sites about SCIO/QXCI/EPFX and William Nelson on the web, if one was inclined to spend a few minutes on Google.

Is it really possible that no tennis journalist could bother doing simple research? What does this say about the quality of reporting?

And what does this whole story say about Djokovic's judgement?

One More... (Updated)

2011-10-28T19:30:00.000-07:00

Really? You're off-season and you still picked 6 AM?

And more from this year:

Hey, at least it wasn't 6am, right?

Thanks, michlob

Then pick a later time!

Spare us the phony outrage. There's a reason they came at that time: You picked the hour.

On This Date In 2009

2011-10-28T05:21:00.000-07:00

Two years ago today...

Plus Bonus Quote

Peter Bodo (2006): "So, as far as I’m concerned, everyone from Roger Federer on down to the most desperate journeyman is a potential doper. It just wouldn’t be fair to look at it any other way."

The Straight Dope on "Whereabouts"

2011-10-27T15:03:00.000-07:00

After all the twitter shenanigans about out-of-competition testing, I think a more comprehensive look at the "Whereabouts" Programme is in order. Everything you need to know is available on the ITF's website here.

The main points are the following:

1. A player can submit quarterly whereabouts info via (1) WADA’s on-line Whereabouts management system; or (2) downloading this form and submitting to the ITF by e-mail, fax, or post.

2. A player can update their whereabouts info at any time using (1) the online WADA system; (2) fax, e-mail, or post the ITF; or (3) Short Message Service (SMS) using a mobile phone, smart phone, or PDA.

3. The forms leave the time slot completely at the players discretion. There are no boxes to check-off. The player must indicate the 60-minute slot in full.

Pretty straight forward, no?

This is the paper form, but players can also input info online.

4. Players do not have to provide whereabouts for days when they are In-Competition, they can leave those days blank.

It's clear that keeping a player's whereabouts current is easy, meaning that it is also simple for players to pick convenient 60-minute time slots, if they are so inclined. The whining is pure theatre, and players should be called on it. Indeed, if the ITF was serious, they would be calling out the players publicly on the whining. However, they don't, which speaks volumes about the ITF's attitude.

Another Tweet (Updated)

2011-10-26T05:28:00.000-07:00

Missed one this morning:

How many post-USO tests have been conducted?

_______________________________________________________________________

Poor Stan...wait, who picks the time again?

Serve Speeds (Updated)

2011-10-25T09:04:00.000-07:00

Update: In totally unrelated news: Surprise!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was an article in The Economist yesterday about serve speeds.

A couple of excerpts:

Since the 1990s the amount of topspin generated by the elite players has risen sharply...serve speed is still rising inexorably.

...While innovations in racket and string technology have previously introduced more power into the game, the players themselves are responsible for the changes happening today. Taller, stronger and fitter than past generations, they have also been exploiting new methods of training.

...As Mr [Stuart] Miller puts it, if certain “hard physiological limits” were broken, the receiver would stand no chance. At that point, authorities would need to intervene.

Why is it that no one ever delves into why today's players are so much more powerful now than in the past? The article mentions technology and "exploiting new methods of training" as reasons for the increase in power, but provides absolutely no detail or explanation as to why this should be the case.

What are these new training methods? Which players are using them? How do they specifically benefit groundstroke and serve speeds? None of these questions are even asked, let alone answered.

And just how could “hard physiological limits” be broken?

The article doesn't even give historical data on speeds (it gives a minimal bit on ball revolutions). Have the increases in speed been significant? How can we tell without any data?

Poor quality stuff.

TIU Comments on "Watchlist" and More Tweets About Tests

2011-10-24T12:45:00.000-07:00

Unlike the rest of the English-language tennis media (if anyone can find an English language publication that did this, let me know), I wrote to the TIU, asking about the "watchlist" article, to get their side of the story. They responded:

So, let it never be said that I don't try to provide balance or don't try to verify information. Too bad the ITF is refusing to reply to my e-mails.

In other news (thanks, michlob):

The real question is: why is she being tested in October?

The Tweets Keep On Coming

2011-10-21T15:39:00.000-07:00

The player tweets about out-of-competition continues unabated. This time from Novak Djokovic (Thanks, Jenny).

Well, at least it's not 6am, right?

A few points about this:

1. This continues the OOC tests following the US Open. Both Djovokic and Wozniacki were tested post-USO. If you're serious about doping you do not conduct your OOC testing after the last major competition of the year.

2. Djokovic received an OCC test this year, unlike in 2009. Recall that his name does not appear on the 2009 OOC list.

3. Djokovic, in his response (below), to a tweet about his test, appears to actually be perpetuating the myth that OOC testers just show-up at inconvenient hours. How many times does it need to be pointed out that the player selects the hour? Read the rules. Or, are we to assume, as Djovokic seems to be suggesting in his response, that higher ranked players get preferential OOC testing hours?

So, only if you're No.1 can you choose 8am for out-of-competition testing hour?

Are we clear now?

Who will tweet next?

Match Fixing Article (Updated #2)

2011-10-20T12:14:00.001-07:00

Update #2: Seems like "watchlists" do exist. The TIU gave a list of non-players to Wimbledon Officials this year.

__________________________________________________________________________________
UPDATE: Just realized that the author of the SvD article is Jonas Arnesen. You'd recognize his name as being a co-author of a book (one of the other authors was Magnus Norman) called "Tennis off the record". It made a number of allegations regarding doping and doping policy back in 2005.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
An intriguing piece from the Swedish publication SVD. In the sporting section, an article publishes what it claims is a "secret" list of 41 players that have either been investigated (20 players) for, or suspected (21) of, some type of match fixing: Here is a Google Translation. (Thanks, Shadow)

A blog discusses the article.

There is other material here(Thanks michlob) and here.

UBITennis covers the Swedish story.

Russian blog coverage.

Whoops! (Updated again)

2011-10-17T05:08:00.000-07:00

The players don't seem to mind making public statements about out-of-competition tests. Why won't the ITF just release the information?

Another:

More Tweets from the Players:

Caroline Wozniacki answers the call and tells the world.

Rennae Stubbs responds to Caroline, revealing that she was also tested.

Mardy Fish doesn't mind talking about it either.

Andy Murray's tweets regarding drug testing are well documented.

One more (Thanks, michlob):

Dinara Safina gets a wake-up call.

Australian Anti-Doping Reporting vs. ITF

2011-10-16T13:56:00.000-07:00

How inadequate is the ITF's anti-doping reporting? It's so bad, they should be embarassed, but they're probably not because they are "WADA compliant." The ITF's embarassingly reporting is put into focus when compared to the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA). (Recall that it was Australian customs and NOT the ITF that caught Wayne Odesnik with HGH. If not for Australia, would the ITF have ever caught Odesnik for anything?)

So, what does the ITF produce in term of anti-doping reporting? Not much, except for this TWO (2) page document. All it gives is the number of tests conducted at each tournament and the number of out-of-competition tests. Not very enlightening. It does not even provide a summary of the anti-doping violations for the past year.

The ASADA, on the otherhand, produced this comprehensive 208-page report. The report tells you pretty much everything you would want know about what they did, including:

1. Qualitative deliverables
2. Quantitative deliverables
3. Qualitative key performance indicators
4. Quantitative key performance indicators
5. Publicly announced anti-doping rule violations
6. Substances involved in anti-doping matters
7. Breakdown of anti-doping rule violations
8. Full-time and part-time staff
9. Therapeutic use exemptions granted
10. Substances and methods approved for therapeutic use
11. Expenses and resources

Good stuff, no? There's another piece of information that the ASADA gives that caught my attention (aside from reporting the TUEs). That would be their deliverables and performance indicators, like this one:

Interesting. The ASADA reports if any enforcement actions were thrown out because the ASADA didn't follow their own rules and legislation (and/or the WADA Code). How many enforcement actions were successfully challenged on procedural grounds for non-compliance with the ITF's programme or the WADA Code? Is this one of the reasons for the discrepancy between the number of adverse findings and anti-doping violations by the ITF? Recall that the ITF does not publicly report exonerations.

Let's be clear. The ITF's anti-doping programme reports neither deliverables nor any performance indicators. Do they even have any? How do they judge the effectiveness of their programme? Why does the ITF refuse to release information that the ASADA gives out on an annual basis? Why is the ITF keeping so much information secret?

A lot of people criticize this site for speculation. They counter that there is no evidence that the ITF isn't taking anti-doping seriously. I ask: what evidence do they have that the ITF is taking it seriously? There is no reason why the ITF cannot provide the same detail as the ASADA. However, they don't. There is no way to measure the effectiveness of the ITF's program. One can only wonder why the ITF publishes such minimal information.

Letter to the ITF's Stuart Miller

2011-10-14T17:58:00.000-07:00

An e-mail to Stuart Miller, Executive Director, Science and Technical Department. He oversees the ITF's anti-doping programme.

From: Rikyu Sen
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:01:12 PM
Subject: ITF anti-doping programme questions

Dear Mr. Miller,

The WADA's Senior Manager of Media Relations and Communications has advised me to contact the ITF with respect to information related to the ITF's anti-doping programme (see below for a copy of that e-mail). I am writing to you personally because your staff (anti-doping@itftennis.com) have either failed to provide any response, or offered the cryptic response that they were "unable" to provide the information I requested. As a result, I am asking you review my questions and provide a response yourself, or direct you staff to respond.

I understand that you will probably not want to provide complete information for some (perhaps all) of my questions. I would ask that if you make that decision that you provide the rationale for doing so. However, given that transparency is the foundation of any credible anti-doping programme, I trust that you will do your best to provide full information in a timely maner.

Here are the questions:

1. The ITF does not publicly disclose players or other persons who are asserted to have commited an anti-doping violation. The WADA clearly allows such disclosure. Why does the ITF choose not to make such disclosure?

2. The ITF does not publicly disclose decisions in which a players or other persons is found to have not committed an anti-doping rule violation; the WADA clearly permits such disclosure. Why does the ITF choose not to make such disclosure?

3. The ITF previously published reports showing the name of each Athlete tested and the date of each Testing, but did not do so for its 2010 testing statistics. The WADA clearly permits such disclosure. Why did the ITF choose to make this change?

4. The ITF's Statistics on testing under the 2010 ITF Tennis Anti-Doping Programme indicate 2, 075 total specimens of which 1,183 were from men and 892 were from women. Please indicate (1) How many of these specimens tested positive for the presence of a Prohibited Substance; and (2) How many specimens tested negative for the presence of a Prohibited Substance.

5. The ITF's Statistics on testing under the 2009 ITF Tennis Anti-Doping Programme indicated that 49 out-of-competition missions were conducted where no sample was collected. For how many out-of-competition missions conducted in 2008 and 2010 was no sample collected?

6. What is the ITF's current anti-doping program budget? (in US dollars)

7. For 2009 and 2010, how many Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) have been granted and for which substances they were granted? Similarly, how many TUE applications have been declined and for which substances?"

Regards,

Rikyu Sen

WADA's David Howman Responds

2011-10-12T15:33:00.000-07:00

Back on September 26th, I wrote to the WADA's Director General, David Howman, requesting information that the ITF refuses to provide. I also criticised the ITF's general lack of transparency. After a reminder e-mail, I received a reponse today from David Howman.

Here it is: Dear Rikyu Sen,

I have your note of 26 September. Transparency is of course one of the foundations for the way in which the World Anti-Doping Agency has operated since its inception.

There is a difference between transparency and disclosure of private information relating to individual athletes. Effectively, you ask for more statistical data.

The statistics which we publish, and they have been published recently, emanate from the laboratories. We ask each one of the anti-doping organizations in the world to forward their statistics so that they can be published alongside and give us an indication on how each sport has dealt with its annual program. We have not been mandated to treat this aspect of reporting as compulsory for Code compliance. That may change going forward. The ITF has not breached any current element of compliance, but we expect that they will issue annual statistics. At present there is no format or mandatory way of reporting for a signatory.

We have several projects in mind where the statistics we gather are far more informative and sport specific. The information you are seeking is not presently totally contained within ADAMS because ADAMS is not used by all stakeholders. We cannot advance your query any further.

Yours sincerely,

David Howman

Director General
First, I'd like to thank Mr. Howman for responding (and I have sent him a e-mail saying so). And although I'm disappointed that he didn't provide the information I asked for, he did respond, and in a manner far more reasonable and respectful than anything I have received from the ITF (which hasn't responded to probably my last half-dozen queries).

A couple of initial thoughts on this. To start, I think we have conclusively demonstrated that, following last year's posting snafu, the ITF has made a decision to meet the bare minimum WADA reporting requirements. They are completely within the rights to provided more information (and did so in the past), but have simply decided against it.

Second, it's pretty obvious that the WADA reporting requirements are inadequate (and Howman's response seems to tacitly concede this point). They leave too much discretion to the signatories. Some provide a great deal of information like cycling and powerlifting. And others, like the ITF, do as little as possible to maintain compliance and point to Code compliance whenever anybody raises questions. In my opinion, this behavior shows that the ITF's signing on to the WADA was a public relations exercise, used in an attempt to appease critics, give the media an excuse to not ask questions, and provide the public with a sense of security, rather than a real attempt to clean-up the sport.

Last, I'd point out that the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA)published its 2010-11 Annual Report yesterday. It's a report that puts the ITF to shame. The ASADA report includes budget information, the number of therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) that the ASADA has granted and rejected, along with substances and methods for the TUEs. There is absolutely no comparison between the transparency of the ASADA and the ITF. ASADA wins hands down. Recall that when I asked the ITF about their budget and TUEs, they refused to supply the information.

All of this, of course, begs many questions: Why won't the ITF be more transparent? What reasons do they have to conceal information from the public?

Historical Documents Resurface (Updated #3)

2011-10-08T08:31:00.000-07:00

UPDATE #3: Ok, so I've been pretty aggressive (probably to an annoying extent for people following my feed) on the twitter front with the screen captures of the out-of-competition test document. Also, I've been pushing it internationally (France and Germany), using Google Translation. I think it's safe to say that the out-of-competition doc has never gotten as much visibility as it has in the last 24 hours. And it also has never been as accessible, the highlighted version makes simple to identify who didn't have a sample collected. Will it do anything? Don't know, we'll see.

In the meantime, there's not much else happening and my preference is to not blog puff pieces. So, for now, I leave it to you, readers, to provide some guidance as to what I should do next.

Also, if you have a twitter account, please tweet the important posts and/or retweet my tweets. Needle the journalists and powers that be. Let them know there's a problem that needs fixing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE #2: This is an interesting link.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:

The "professional" tennis media should be ashamed for not doing this themselves a long time ago. Clearly, they are too close to both the players and the governing bodies. They have lost their ability to independently cover the sport in an objective manner. They're just fanboys and fangirls that fawn over their heroes.

Notice any differences between the top image (original ITF posting that was removed) and the bottom (the redacted version the ITF posted)

One of these things is not like the other:

Original ITF anti-doping statistic posting.

ITF's Current Posting for 2009 Anti-doping statistics

Some more from the ITF's original 2009 Anti-Doping Statistics (some interesting names, no?):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cyberspace is a weird place ain't it?

Screen captures of the ITF's original 2009 Tennis Anti-Doping Programme Statistics have resurfaced here.

I'll be doing a more complete posting later.

Update on Docstoc Removal... (Updated)

2011-10-05T15:24:00.000-07:00

UPDATED: More correspondence with Docstoc:

From: Rikyu Sen
Sent: 10/5/2011 2:51 PM
To: support@docstoc.com
Subject: Re: Re: New Case 00067296: Document Removed [ ref:00DAbocC.500G7yR69:ref ]

Hello,

Thank-you for the response, but I'd appreciate greater clarity. Can you please specify what part of Docstoc's "mission statement" the content was not inline with?
The response:
From: Docstoc Support
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 8:38:46 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Re: New Case 00067296: Document Removed [ ref:00DAbocC.500G7yR69:ref ]

Hello,

That is all the information I am able to provide.
Right....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted a few days ago, Docstoc has removed the ITF 2009 Testing Statistics document giving the names of players with out-of-competition tests for which no sample was collected.

So, of course, I sent them an e-mail about it:
From: Rikyu Sen
To: "support@docstoc.com"
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 11:00:16 PM
Subject: Document Removed

Hello,

Can you please explain when and why the following document was removed?
This is from your website:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26478361/drug-test-doc

"The document "drug test doc" is no longer available on docstoc.

It has either been removed by the original owner of the document or by the docstoc staff due to copyrighted or inappropriate content."

Thank-you.
Here is their response:
From: Docstoc Support
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 1:45:54 PM
Subject: RE: Re: New Case 00067296: Document Removed [ ref:00DAbocC.500G7yR69:ref ]

Hello,

The document was removed because the content was not inline with
Docstoc's mission statement.
What can you say about that? I find it amazing that the document removed, which with the exception of the 49 triple-zero entries, is exactly the same as the document posted on the ITF's website.

I couldn't find Docstoc's "mission statement," so if anyone knows what it is, let me know. I note that they have documents with instructions on how to build guns and bombs, so I'd like to know why those documents are "inline" with Docstoc's "mission statement," but the testing document is not.

Go figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum: A couple of additional thoughts on this whole thing. First, the document that was removed was downloaded from the ITF site after the ITF posted it. Second, while said document was removed and replaced by the ITF, to my knowledge, they have never awknowledged publicly having either posted an incorrect document, or replacing documents.

Can This Site Take Any Credit For This?

2011-10-05T05:35:00.000-07:00

Released yesterday by the WADA. Maybe they actually read some of our e-mails.

WADA has introduced changes to its International Standard for Testing (IST) that will improve the Agency’s annual reporting of statistics in 2012 and beyond...

...Under Articles 14.4 and 14.5 of the World Anti-Doping Code, WADA is required to collect and publish a global summary of all anti-doping statistics.

Improvements to the collection of statistics will also allow a better assessment of WADA’s new directive to ADOs for an increase in the amount of blood sampling.

Statistics Amendments

In order to improve its mandate for statistics, WADA has made the following changes to the IST and ISL:

a) Addition of the type of sample and the type of test to the requirements for sample collection documentation (IST clause 7.4.5).

b) Addition of the Testing Authority (who authorized the test) and Sample Collection Authority (who collected the sample) to the requirements for sample collection (IST clause 7.4.5) and to the requirements for documentation and reporting by the laboratory (ISL clauses 5.2.6.6 and 6.2.6.6). New definitions for Sample Collection Authority and Testing Authority have also been incorporated into the Standard to ensure standardization in reporting of this information.

c) Addition of a new requirement to security/post-test administration (IST clause 8.3.3) specifying information in relation to the sample that the ADO shall provide to the WADA-accredited laboratory for result reporting and statistical purposes.

d) New IST clause (9.3.7) requiring ADOs to furnish WADA with additional information on adverse findings for statistical and research purposes.

Adding this information to all Doping Control Documentation, and subsequently to all laboratory reports, will enable ADAMS to act as an improved central clearing house for all tests, irrespective of whether or not the ADO uses ADAMS.

This will give access to the volume and types of tests conducted by each ADO and provide data to analyze with respect to gaps in testing amongst stakeholders, with a view to evaluating efficacy...

This Story Just Got Interesting (Update #2)

2011-10-04T09:02:00.000-07:00

UPDATE #2: Some more correspondence to report. This time it's with the Tennis Integrity Unit (TIU) . My initial query and follow-up were made prior to Savic's annoucement thah he was appealing the decision.

SNR: According to your website, "The TIU works on a confidential basis and makes no public comment on its work other than to confirm the outcome of an investigation that results in disciplinary action being taken."

Can you please explain the rationale for this policy? Also, please provide an explanation on why or whether the TIU believes that keeping hearing materials and decisions confidential are compatible with the principles of natural justice.

TIU Response: There are a number of reasons why Hearing procedures are kept confidential in tennis corruption cases, including:
- the possibility of criminal investigations and trials taking place as a result of tennis disciplinary proceedings
- the possibility of Appeals that require the evidence to be tested again
- the privacy of witnesses and other entirely innocent parties named or giving evidence in Hearings

SNR Follow-up: Thank-you for the prompt response. I can appreciate some of the reasons you have given for privacy and evidence related to criminal investigation. However, appeals occur on a routine basis in criminal and civil proceedings without a need to keep original evidence and decisions confidential, so I don't understand your reasoning on that point . Also, I don't see how any of the reasons represent a rationale for complete confidentiality of all materials, especially the TIU's decisions. Could not the TIU put out at least a redacted decision of some form to accomodate both the TIU's concerns and also transparency to the public and media. How is the public to trust a process that is kept entirely secret? I'd note that some members of the tennis media have ridiculed the TIU's lack of transparency on Twitter.

TIU Response (after Savic appeal story broke): Thank you for your further comments.
Well, I think it's safe to say that the TIU won't be responding to anymore of my questions...but, I think I should put that to the test, since they didn't really answer all of my questions. And, once again, I ask: Has the media posed such questions to the TIU? If so, what did the TIU tell them?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE #1: Here is a google translation of David Savic's statement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Saturday morning (Oct. 1), the ITF's Tennis Integrity Unit quietly announced that Serbian player David Savic would be banned for life for offenses under the Uniform Tennis Anti-Corruption Program. Like all TIU proceedings: "Consistent with the confidentiality of the Anti-Corruption Hearing process, no details of the Hearing or Decision will be made public."

Who is David Savic? Just another journeymen player with a career-best ranking of 363rd in back in 2009.

This just all changed.

Savic has announced that he will appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Further, it has been reported by the Associated Press that:

The 26-year-old Savic said in a written statement that he was set up by a "current top player" who told the TIU that Savic asked him to fix a match in exchange for money.

"That is an absolute lie," Savic said.

In the statement, Savic said that he was friends with the unidentified top player during their junior days, and that he has not spoken or contacted him in the past 11 years. He said that he could not reveal the name of the player because a judge ordered the TIU ruling be kept confidential.

"I was obviously chosen as a scapegoat," Savic said. "Without any concrete evidence, I became a drastic example for other players."

Let's see where this goes. Who is the "current top player"?

Open Letter to the WADA's David Howman and John Fahey

2011-10-03T16:03:00.000-07:00

Last week I sent an e-mail to the WADA's President John Fahey and Director General David Howman. I have not yet received a response. Here is that letter. I hope a response is forthcoming.

From: Rikyu Sen
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 8:14:14 AM
Subject: WADA Disclosure and Transparency

Dear Messrs. Howman and Fahey,

Gentlemen, when Mr. Howman criticised recently the lack of transparency of the Football Association anti-doping programme and the importance of public disclosure, I was very pleased and was reassured that the WADA is committed to being open with the public and ensuring that its signatories are transparent and open. However, my recent experience with media staff of the WADA has made me reconsider this view.

Over the past several months, I have been trying to request anti-doping data from the International Tennis Federation, regarding the positive tests and therapeutic use exemptions. In response, they stated in no uncertain terms indicated that they will not provide the information requested. As a result, I contacted the WADA for the same data, which the WADA possesses within the ADAMS system. To my disappointment, WADA media staff (Mr. --------) told me to contact the ITF. I explained to your staff that the ITF had refused to answer my questions and forwarded my ITF correspondence to your staff. Even after this I was still told to contact the ITF. Further, your staff informed me that the "WADA is not mandated to publish any further statistics, or to compile them in different formats." I would hope that you both agree that this is not an appropriate response to my questions.

The WADA should hold itself (and its signatories) to the same standard of transparency that it demands from others, should it not? And Mr. Howman, you yourself have stated, "Don’t give the public the chance to suspect the worst," and that programs should not be "tainted by secrecy," as lack of disclosure leads to speculation and suspicion. Yet I fail to see the difference between the Football Association's lack of disclosure and what the ITF (and WADA) has displayed with respect to my enquiries. What am I to make of this secrecy?

The public has a right to know this information, does it not? Of what utility is the Code if signatories and the WADA selectively decide which articles to follow and what information to disclose? Why should the public accept that everything is fine when the WADA and an international federation assert compliance while at the same time being non-transparent? It appears to me that both the WADA's and ITF's responses to my enquiries are contrary to the spirit of the Public Disclosure provisions of the WADA Code.

Therefore, I am making this appeal to both of you for information regarding the ITF's anti-doping programme.

The questions I have are:

1. How many valid/active therapeutic use exemptions have been issued to ITF players? For what substances and for what reason?

2. The ITF reported 30 adverse analytical test results from 2008-2010. For each year indicate:

a) The substance(s) detected in each test.

b) The number of adverse results that did not result in a anti-doping violation, indicating the reason for no violation (e.g., TUE)

c) The number of provisional/voluntary suspensions served.

3. How many missed out-of-competition tests occurred for ITF players for 2008 and 2010?

All this information should be contained within the WADA's ADAMS database (and the ITF, of course). This is all I seek. I do not seek player identities. However, if there are cases were it is felt that a player's right to confidentiality could be violated, I will accept lesser detail with explanation. I would add that almost all the information I seek is freely disclosed by other WADA signatories, such as the UCI, IAAF, Powerlifting and Floorball.

I hope you consider my request and provide a positive response. If you choose not to provide the information, I would appreciate a clear explanation regarding why the WADA is making a discretionary choice not to disclose and why the WADA has not reprimanded the ITF for its lack of disclosure.

Thank-you for your time,

Rikyu Sen

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: If you read only one item today, you should make it this speech by Richard Pound on corruption in sport.

Waiting for answers from the ITF

2011-10-03T05:27:00.000-07:00

Sent to the ITF's communications department on September 25, 2011:

I have an enquiry regarding the ITF's anti-doping programme and its compliance with certain World Anti-Doping Association (WADA) articles:

WADA article 14.2.1 states: "The identity of any Athlete or other Person who is asserted by an Anti-Doping Organization to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, may be publicly disclosed by the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility only after notice has been provided to the Athlete or other Person in accordance with Articles 7.2, 7.3 or 7.4, and to the applicable Anti-Doping Organizations in accordance with Article 14.1.2."

Question 1: The ITF does not publicly disclose players or other persons who are asserted to have commited an anti-doping violation. The WADA clearly allows such disclosure. Why does the ITF not make such disclosure?

WADA article 14.2.3 states: "In any case where it is determined, after a hearing or appeal, that the Athlete or other Person did not commit an anti-doping rule violation, the decision may be disclosed publicly only with the consent of the Athlete or other Person who is the subject of the decision. The Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility shall use reasonable efforts to obtain such consent, and if consent is obtained, shall publicly disclose the decision in its entirety or in such redacted form as the Athlete or other Person may approve."

Question 2: The ITF does not publicly disclose decision in which a players or other persons is found to have not committed an anti-doping rule violation; the WADA clearly permits such disclosure. Why does the ITF not make such disclosure?

WADA article 14.4 states: "Anti-Doping Organizations shall, at least annually, publish publicly a general statistical report of their Doping Control activities with a copy provided to WADA. Anti-Doping Organizations may also publish reports showing the name of each Athlete tested and the date of each Testing."

Question 3: The ITF previously published reports showing the name of each Athlete tested and the date of each Testing, but did not do so for its 2010 testing statistics. The WADA clearly permits such disclosure. Why did the ITF make this change?

Also, can you please identify the ITF's anti-doping programme budget for 2011?

Odds on getting a response?

"The document "drug test doc" is no longer available on docstoc."

2011-10-01T20:10:00.000-07:00

Yes, this is correct. The list of players with missed out-of-competition tests from 2009 has been removed from "doctoc".

If you try the link, the following message appears:

The document "drug test doc" is no longer available on docstoc.

It has either been removed by the original owner of the document or by the docstoc staff due to copyrighted or inappropriate content.

Trying to find out when and why it was removed. The list of players is available at this post.

Stay tuned.

New Look and September Stats

2011-09-26T14:50:00.000-07:00

As the fall lull continues, a few things:

1. I'm working on the layout of the blog to make it more reader friendly. So far, I've changed the color scheme, as well as increasing the width of the posts and font size. Let me know what you think, and if there are other possible improvements.(Thanks michlob for the reminder)

2. September 2011 has seen the blog obliterate its previous monthly high in terms of pageviews (see chart). September has attracted 84,388 views as of writing this entry. The old record was 73,576 back in June 2011.

3. From the site stats, it was the women's draw that set off alarm bells for people watching the US Open. Mr. Nadal and Mr. Djokovic were a distant afterthought.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pageview History

Search Keywords 2011 Aug 27 – 2011 Sep 25

tennis has a steroid problem 2,462
samantha stosur muscles 1,876
serena williams steroids 1,801
tennis steroids 1,072
stosur steroids 728
samantha stosur steroids 376
djokovic doping 365
tennishasasteroidproblem 332
djokovic steroids 230
nadal steroids 189

Et tu, WADA? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

2011-09-23T12:28:00.000-07:00

With my failure to get data from the ITF well established (here, here, and here) I thought I'd take a crack at the WADA. The timing seemed right given the release of the 2010 statistics. Here is the lengthy tale of futility:
SNR: I write for a tennis website/blog and have a couple of questions regarding the 2009 WADA summary anti-doping statistics. The statistics state that the International Tennis Federation had 10 adverse analytical findings, but 4 anti-doping violations. Can you provide an itemized explanation for each case where an adverse finding did not lead to a violation (e.g. was player exonerated by tribunal, did player have therapeutic use exemption)? I don't want the names of the players involved, just the reason behind for no violation.

Secondly, how many therapeutic use exemptions were issued in 2010 and how many are currently active in the International Tennis Federation and for what substances (or reason for the exemption)? Again, I don't want player names, just the number and substances (or reason).
And the response:WADA: Can I suggest that you direct your questions to the International Tennis Federation as it is responsible for the results management of its anti-doping program.
Needless to say, this was not the response I was seeking. I should note that I sent e-mails to both the WADA's media inquiries e-mail (which is the response above) and the WADA's general info e-mail. The info e-mail gave me a similar response. However, I decided to press further and replied back to both e-mails with the following (and forwarded them the reject e-mails I received from the ITF regarding TUE data):SNR: I thought some additional context was required regarding out previous correspondence where both of you indicated that I should contact the ITF for the information I requested regarding (1) TUEs granted by the ITF and (2) the reasons behind the difference between the ITF's adverse analytical findings and anti-doping violations.

Please see below the correspondence I have had with the ITF (with Holly Flatley cc'd on this e-mail) in attempting to get anti-doping information. The e-mails below regard my requests for information regarding ITF therapeutic use exemption information. In these emails the ITF indicates that they "cannot provide" the information requested. In my view, they are able to provide the information, but have simply decided not to disclose it. I do not understand why they have adopted this stance, but I can only observe that such secrecy reduces the credibility of their anti-doping programme.

I hope the WADA can communicate to the ITF that it is in the best interests of transparency and credibility that they disclose the information I have requested.

Thank-you for your attention to this matter. I hope it can be resolved quickly.
I also sent an additional e-mail forwarding to the WADA the ITF's refusal to disclose their anti-doping budget:SNR: My apologies for this additional e-mail, but to add further context to the ITF's refusal to disclose information please see below their refusal to even provide me with the budget for their anti-doping programme. So, as stated earlier, I have contacted the WADA for this reason and if the WADA can provide the information I requested, I would greatly appreciated it. The ITF has demonstrated that their priority is non-transparency. Indeed, I find their behaviour similar to that of the Football Association.
The response from WADA Media:
Following your emails to various members of WADA, can I please direct you to the relevant section of the WADA website for statistics:

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Resources/Global-Statistics/

I must also advise you again that the International Tennis Federation – which is fully compliant to the World Anti-Doping Code – is responsible for the results management of its anti-doping program.

As mentioned previously, WADA is responsible for making sure that this process is followed to the correct conclusion.

WADA is also responsible for publishing the annual statistics I have directed you, as mandated in the Code. We have just completed doing this for 2010.

WADA is not mandated to publish any further statistics, or to compile them in different formats.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There you have it. This is disheartening and disappointing. Only last week, David Howman, director general of the WADA, said this about the Football Association and its drug/doping scandal: "Why does there have to be so much secrecy? When sports people get involved with substances that are ordinarily part of a criminal justice programme, what is so special about sport that it ought not to come into the public arena?"

"There will of course be times when revealing a player's identity might seriously compromise his rehabilitation, particularly if he has a serious drug addiction or a medical condition. I accept the need for confidentiality in such cases."

"But in such a circumstance, why not announce the positive drug test, then publish a statement explaining why the player has not been named? If you are going to withhold a player's identity, then you should at least provide the justification."

"The FA should not allow a perfectly good programme to be tainted by secrecy. If a player needs to be protected, then give us the reason why. Don't give the public the chance to suspect the worst."

So, are we to believe that keeping secrets is acceptable for the WADA and its signatories? Why is the WADA hiding behind lame excuses, saying they are "not mandated to publish any further statistics, or to compile them in different formats"?

I'm really puzzled by the WADA passing the buck on this one. Are they complicit in the secrecy, or is the WADA just a toothless organization with no real authority? There can be no doubt that the WADA has the information I requested. The WADA is supposed to review TUEs applications (and their 2010 Annual Report noted that 19,500 TUEs had been entered into their system). The WADA is also supposed to review exoneration decisions because they have the right to appeal decisions of anti-doping tribunals (although there is no evidence that they have ever appealed an ITF finding of no violation).

At the end of the day, I suppose this will be just one more story that the tennis (and sports) media ignores. However, once again, I note that it is this site, and pretty much this site alone, that has been asking the tough questions. Not only that, we've posed those questions directly to the governing bodies responsible for oversight. We're not sitting around engaging in idle speculation and conspiracy talk as some in the tennis press like to suggest.

There is a fundamental transparency problem here. The governing institutions are failing to be open with the public. One of the roles of the media is to keep these institutions accountable. Why are they so silent?